Subsection (c) of Rule 101 (“Title and Scope”) of the Texas Rules of Evidence reads as follows:
“(c) Hierarchical Governance in Criminal Proceedings. –Hierarchical governance shall be in the following order: the Constitution of the United States, those federal statutes that control states under the supremacy clause, the Constitution of Texas, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, civil statutes, these rules, and the common law. Where possible, inconsistency is to be removed by reasonable construction.”
If you’ve read “The Organic Law of The United States of America” you know that this “Organic Law” includes four documents:
1) The Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776);
2) Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) which are the constitution of The United States of America;
3) Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and,
4) Constitution of the United States (first ratified and made effective by the People in A.D. 1788).
“The United States of America” (constituted by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781) and the “United States” (constituted by the Constitution of the United States in A.D. 1788) are two different entities, “planes” or jurisdictions.
Note that the “Hierarchical Governance” described at Rule 101(c) of the Texas Rules of Evidence includes only one component of The Organic Law of The United States of America: the Constitution of the United States. This “Hierarchical Governance” does not include three of the four components of The Organic Law of The United States of America: Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and NW Ordinance.
This omission may be of huge significance.
The Rules Of Evidence and virtually all of the other codes and rules of “Texas” (at least in relationship to “criminal proceedings” (which are actually, or at least probably, “penal” in nature)) are of the “United States” but not “of The United States of America”.
It’s possible that this rule of Hierarchical Governance is consistent with—and may even lay the foundation for—the distinction between “this state” (a territory and/or administrative district “of the United States”) and “The State” (like “The State of Texas”) which is member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. (See, US vs USA)
Thus, Congress recognized The Organic Law of The United States of America back in A.D. 1875. But the current state “of the United States” called “Texas” does not.
This omission can’t be accidental.
I believe we can “work around” this omission (at least in part) with the 9th Amendment which declares that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Thus, even though the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence” are not expressly listed or referenced in the Constitution of the United States, they still exist and can be claimed and accessed by means of the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (which the Texas Rule of Evidence 101(c) recognizes as the supreme law in the list of “Hierarchical Governence”).
You should recognize that the “Bill of Rights” was intended to protect the States of the Union and/or the Union itself from the federal government. See “Preamble to Bill of Rights”.
The first key to claiming your God-given, unalienable Rights under the 9th Amendment is probably that you first prove and verify under oath (perhaps with your own affidavit and two or three more affidavits from friends) that you are one of the “people” of your State of the Union (like “The State of Texas”) and/or one of the “people” of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. If you consent to appear as a “US person,” “US citizen,” “inhabitant,” “resident,” “occupant” or perhaps even as a fiduciary in a trust deemed to operate in, or be of, the “United States”—your claims of unalienable Rights will probably fall on death ears.
The second “key” to claiming your God-given, unalienable Rights under the 9th Amendment at the “state” level may be to expressly claim and hopefully prove that your “state” is a “state of the United States” (rather than a “State of The United States of America”)
I’d be very interested to discover how the rules of “Hierarchical Governance” are listed in states other than Texas. I’d be very surprised if every “state of the United States” didn’t use a rule of “Hierarchical Governance” virtually identical to that of “this state” (Texas) and without reference to the first three documents in The Organic Law of The United States of America.