Patricia Kilday Hart Jan. 26, 2013 Updated: Jan. 26, 2013 10:15 p.m.
While advocates of Texas secession may have stalled with their online petition efforts, state lawmakers have filed numerous bills objecting to major White House initiatives and suggesting the state doesn't have to abide them.
"I am very concerned about the federal government's rapid expansion and attempts to impose its will on the states," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said in a statement supporting Campbell's constitutional amendment. "Here in Texas we will never concede our freedom to Washington."
But to South Texas College of Law constitutional law professor Charles Rhodes, the anti-federal-government proposals amount to "political grandstanding."
"It is eminently clear that, under the Supremacy Clause that was part of our Constitution when the states ratified it, that the federal government is supreme," he said. "It's been our constitutional basis for 200 years."
In a written release last week, Dewhurst called the federal health care law "unconstitutional" despite a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to the contrary, and pledged to "continue to fight for the repeal of Obamacare."
Campbell's legislation would "create a right in the Texas Constitution to purchase or to decline to purchase health insurance without penalty or sanction."
The freshman lawmaker's bill would ensure that state agencies aren't used to enforce the health care act's penalties. For instance, the state attorney general could not garnish wages to collect penalties.
"We should have the backs of Texas families, not be bullying our citizens on behalf of federal bureaucrats," she added.
Likewise, Stickland's bill would offer breaks on state taxes to any company penalized for not providing insurance coverage for contraception.
Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, has filed a bill making it a criminal offense for Texas peace officers and public servants to enforce any federal laws or directives that confiscate or ban firearms, or limit the purchase of any type of ammunition.
"My heart goes out to every victim of gun violence," Otto said in a statement. "But my head knows that banning or restricting guns, magazines, or ammunition won't prevent criminals from getting guns and using them for evil purposes."
Attorney General Greg Abbott was taking a wait-and-see attitude toward the proposed legislation.
"Like many members of the Texas Legislature, Attorney General Abbott is deeply concerned about the Obama administration's demonstrated disregard for the constitutional limits on federal power - so he is committed to defending the rights that our Constitution guarantees to the state of Texas and its citizens,'' said Lauren Bean, Abbott's deputy communications director. "And as attorney general, he has a duty to defend state laws enacted by the Texas Legislature, so we'll see what the Legislature passes and will be prepared to defend those laws in court."
Not all legislative attempts to overturn federal policy are a slap at the Obama administration.
Rep. Lyle Larson, R-San Antonio, has proposed the "Texas Liberty Preservation Act" which protests a 2001 federal law granting presidential authority to use military force to detain suspected terrorists without trial or charges.
Larson said he was concerned that current law could lead to people being "detained without due process" and said similar proposals have garnered bipartisan support around the country.
But a bill by Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, would fan the debate about Obama's legitimacy by requiring the secretary of state to obtain U.S. birth certificates before placing the name of any presidential candidate on a Texas ballot.
Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, chairman of the Democratic caucus, called the anti-federal-government proposals "a distraction" when Texas has "real problems and real needs" - like education, roads and water - waiting to be addressed by lawmakers.
"At some point, just not liking the president isn't the basis of good public policy," Watson said.