PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire Reclaims State Supremacy


.454
02-04-2009, 7:27 AM
Complete article here (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-reclaims-state-supremacy.html)



N.H. HRC 6:

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.

Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

----------------------------------------

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

Complete article here (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-reclaims-state-supremacy.html)

psssniper
02-04-2009, 7:29 AM
Lets hope and pray that this is a trend.

thempopresense
02-04-2009, 7:36 AM
Next headline will be, "California to split into 2 States to fill the New Hampshire space and keep 50 stars on the US flag"

lol

.454
02-04-2009, 7:48 AM
Next headline will be, "California to split into 2 States to fill the New Hampshire space and keep 50 stars on the US flag"

lol

You meant 57 stars...;)

glockman19
02-04-2009, 7:51 AM
Time to call for another Constitutional Convention?

dfletcher
02-04-2009, 8:03 AM
New Hampshire is my home state. It's encouraging to see this sentiment even after all the Massachusetts folks have moved north.

BTW, "join the Army or go to jail is not such a far fetched" approach. I've heard this was often used years ago.

SwissFluCase
02-04-2009, 9:39 AM
Time to call for another Constitutional Convention?

We would have to watch that one like a hawk.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
02-04-2009, 9:50 AM
We would have to watch that one like a hawk.


The absolute worst disaster would be a Constitutional convention. Right now, the 2A is in the Constitution even if the left is determined to interpret it away. Even if the Commerce clause is currently interpreted as a magic wish-granting genie for every absolutist that comes along, at least the decisions that created the evil genie are there to embarass the people who like the effects. I think it *very* likely that any new Constitution would have a weak or absent RKBA and far more central power. Every "respectable" "expert" would work hard for a European-style Constitution.

There is some chance of saving the Republic as it should be if we at least can point out the unconstitutionality of what the left (and plenty of the right) wants. If we don't have that, it's impossible. Notice that Gene says that the only route to RKBA in California is through the courts--I think the odds are very high that this route would not exist under any new Constitution.

There is also a philosophical argument that people who cannot obey their existing constitution are the worst possible people to write a new one....

7x57

nobody_special
02-04-2009, 10:10 AM
No news here, a resolution has been introduced (which does absolutely nothing if passed). The resolution has been referred to committee, and is not scheduled for a vote.

If it is actually voted upon and passes, that will be news...

Cypren
02-04-2009, 10:16 AM
The absolute worst disaster would be a Constitutional convention.

Completely and totally agreed. The Founding Fathers were men who had just fought a vicious and desperate war for their freedom and survival against an oppressive regime. Modern Americans have no such experience, and the vast majority of them have been raised in an "education" system designed to indoctrinate them as worshipful peons of the Almighty State, Grantor Of All Good Things.

Even among strong 2A supporters, there are still many disagreements about the proper limits of state power and how much legitimacy we should cede to a government supposedly operating under the very clear instruction of a right that "shall not be infringed." (Note the thread on this very board asking how much one would pay for a CCW and the disagreement it's caused between people who see themselves as pragmatists and those who see themselves as principled.)

Anyone who thinks that a new Constitution wouldn't result in a document which essentially ceded the State all the power of God hasn't been paying attention to American history.

postal16
02-04-2009, 10:20 AM
our Constitution is just fine the way it is...we just need to reel in the activist judges who have damaged this country and reeducate the masses what the document says!

Our government has taken the same approach to the Constitution that many Christian denominations have taken towards the Bible and Unions have taken towards contracts...you don't need to read this document and waste your time, we will interpret it for you and tell you waht is says!

A new convention will only open the doors for an erosion of our Constitutional Rights!

aileron
02-04-2009, 10:22 AM
You made it sound like it passed, its in committee.

I doubt it will pass, if it does... cool.

Cypren
02-04-2009, 11:14 AM
You made it sound like it passed, its in committee.

Yeah. Likelihood of this actually going anywhere: near zero. But it's still cool at least one state legislator has a set of balls. :)

7x57
02-04-2009, 11:36 AM
our Constitution is just fine the way it is...we just need to reel in the activist judges who have damaged this country and reeducate the masses what the document says!


Careful about the phrase "activist judge". We *need* activist judges at this point--Constitutionalist ones who will be activist enough to strike down unconstitutional laws. Right now we have way too many judges who know how to read it but still defer to power grabs (especially executive ones).


Our government has taken the same approach to the Constitution that many Christian denominations have taken towards the Bible


Oddly enough, it is *exactly* the same. The hermeneutical tools were first developed by theologians, especially nineteenth century German theologians, and then applied to the Constitution mostly in the twentieth. So in that sense, theological developments profoundly damaged our legal system.

7x57

bwiese
02-04-2009, 12:02 PM
Another 454 near-troll post from a non-news-source.

"Reclaims state supremacy..."
"On notice" ??

No such thing. This is a resolution, it has no legal force in general.

(Sometimes contents of a legislative resolution may be usable in certain court cases).

It has about as much relevance as if the NH leg. voted on their favorite ice cream flavor.

SwissFluCase
02-04-2009, 12:24 PM
It has about as much relevance as if the NH leg. voted on their favorite ice cream flavor.

Mine is strawberry. You *will* bow to my flavor hegemony. Mmmm. Ice cream....

I'm sure that there are many who would love to have a constitutional convention. Like 7x57 said, we would get a parliamentary democracy shoved down our throats faster than you could say "founding nannies". The Constitution is a major obstacle in the face of the statists still. Think about what would have happened if the RKBA went away in the 1980's like other parts of the world. Our constitution is just fine the way it is. We, the people, need to start doing our part a bit more effectively.

There have been several state movements that I remember that have threatened to declare the state-fed.gov relationship invalid should fed.gov overstep its bounds. Arizona and Montana come to mind. Of course it is all illegal, but then again no one really wants to go there, as we remember what happened last time... :eek:

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
02-04-2009, 12:38 PM
Of course it is all illegal, but then again no one really wants to go there, as we remember what happened last time... :eek:


This sort of thing is political speech for states, and as such I think is important even though meaningless in a legal sense. One of the biggest victories for big-statists was direct election of the Senate, so that it no longer represents the states as entities. That makes many other federal power grabs easier. But much of it is based on nakedly bad law, and as such can and should be held up to the light. That's essentially what NH is doing. It is not for the court of law but the court of public opinion, to remind people that Federalism is law and that the Federal government has limits to what it can legally do.

If you don't think that's important, then you've forgotten that we got to Heller because an awful lot of people insisted on the plain meaning of the constitution right in the clenched teeth of the statists of every description who basically had a hammerlock on "respectable" legal interpretation, and because law students began to insist on historically valid analysis of what us common folk insisted were our rights. That part of the struggle culminated not just in Heller (resting on all the historical work) but in one of the Brady bunch admitting that there was no point in fighting Heller because they'd lost, and the proof was that 75% of the country believes the RKBA is an individual right anyway. That means that it wasn't just SAF and Alan Gura that won--it was the millions of ordinary gun owners who knew little about the law but were willing to be ridiculed and slandered by "respectable" people in order to say loudly and clearly, over and over, that the RKBA belongs to the people and that highly-educated experts who say otherwise are highly-educated expert frauds. They had no direct legal effect, but I think their determination to speak was necessary as part of the effort that got us to Heller.

In other words, indirectly and slowly, the courts *do* respond to clear, consistent, long-term consensus positions from outside. So...we want more and more states to get more truculent about insisting on Federalism. It has no direct legal force...but it is part of building a climate in which a consensus can be built and real legal action can begin.

It's probably not likely, but here's to the outside chance that the states will say loudly and clearly, over and over, that they have distinct powers under the Constitution which cannot be infringed by the Feds, even if the magic wish-granting genie created by the Commerce Clause fraud says so.

7x57

Harrison_Bergeron
02-04-2009, 12:39 PM
I think that if the economy continues to deteriorate we will see these resolutions and these ideas start to gain a lot more support. Just yesterday I saw on the news that LA County is not going to pay their state taxes because the state is not giving them money due to the lack of a budget. I know that the relationship between a county and state is different than state and federal, but I think that it shows that even the hardest core libs are going to come to a point where their ideological difference lead them to the same place that others have been for quite some time.

Cypren
02-04-2009, 1:10 PM
In other words, indirectly and slowly, the courts *do* respond to clear, consistent, long-term consensus positions from outside. So...we want more and more states to get more truculent about insisting on Federalism. It has no direct legal force...but it is part of building a climate in which a consensus can be built and real legal action can begin.

Very well said.

.454
02-04-2009, 2:15 PM
Another 454 near-troll post from a non-news-source.




I am starting to regret I donated money to CGF...

SwissFluCase
02-04-2009, 2:22 PM
One of the biggest victories for big-statists was direct election of the Senate, so that it no longer represents the states as entities. That makes many other federal power grabs easier.

Direct election of the president was a pretty stupid idea too. That upset the balance of power between the three branches.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

yellowfin
02-04-2009, 2:28 PM
Direct election of the president was a pretty stupid idea too. That upset the balance of power between the three branches.
The problem is that these days I wouldn't like them elected only by electors with no popular vote input either, as then we'd just have an oligarchy. It's bad enough that Fedzilla is as self contained as it is; I see very little from outside DC's influence originating from the people, or even that which does is a disturbingly low percentage. DC runs on autopilot now, only asking for a token gesture vote every now and then and little else, taking all of us as irrelevant--the current situation says that to me, at any rate.

We'd have to strip about 90% of their power before we could go back to the way it was originally designed.

SwissFluCase
02-04-2009, 2:37 PM
The problem is that these days I wouldn't like them elected only by electors with no popular vote input either, as then we'd just have an oligarchy. It's bad enough that Fedzilla is as self contained as it is; I see very little from outside DC's influence originating from the people, or even that which does is a disturbingly low percentage. DC runs on autopilot now, only asking for a token gesture vote every now and then and little else, taking all of us as irrelevant--the current situation says that to me, at any rate.

We'd have to strip about 90% of their power before we could go back to the way it was originally designed.

That is the way it is now. Back when the President was appointed by the Senate, Congress had that 90% of power that you refer to. What Congress was able to give, Congress could take away (impeachment). The direct election of the President upset the balance of power, allowed the Executive branch to achieve unprecedented power as it was freed from Congress, and diminshed the power of Congress to what it is today.

Will we ever correct this? Doesn't seem likely. It is one of the things that got us in this mess, though.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

N6ATF
02-04-2009, 5:24 PM
I am starting to regret I donated money to CGF...

Feel the burn. :43:

CapS
02-04-2009, 6:10 PM
I wonder whether this resolution has anything to do with the Free Staters http://freestateproject.org (http://freestateproject.org/) in NH.
In any case, it's a breath of fresh air. Reminds me of Sheriff Joe in Maricopa, Ariz. He doesn't care much about anybody except his constituents, & goes on arresting illegals who stray into his territory.

/Cap

Sarkoon
02-10-2009, 9:30 PM
This subject is really making waves out there.

Today it hit the home page of Digg, and I'm happy to report that the vast majority of the comments are positive:
http://digg.com/world_news/New_Hampshire_Fires_First_Shot_Of_Civil_War_2

Here's the article they are discussing:
http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-fires-first-shot-of-civil-war-resolution-immediately-voids-several-federal-laws-threatens-counterstrike-against-breach-of-peace/

nick
02-10-2009, 9:53 PM
Time to call for another Constitutional Convention?

Umm, no. Have you seen many statesmen around? I've mostly seen politicians, can't trust that breed.