New Hampshire fires first warning salvo accross the Federal Governments Bow

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Some people here think it's absolute lunacy to even consider that a state would talk secession. It's not just on the minds of conspiracy theorists and nutcakes, but on the minds of the New Hampshire state legislature.

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step today by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!)

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”

Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.

One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.

New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .”

Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!

Quoting directly from the Resolution: “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:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

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.”



Read the full New Hampshire Resolution directly from the State Government Web Site
Click to expand...
Source.
Link to the bill on New Hampshire's official state government site.

There is no way anything will come of this "bill", but that isn't the point. It's clear that people in state government don't like where things are headed and don't like what they see on the horizon.

I think this bill was simply meant to get some publicity and say "We are watching you" to the Fed.

Edit: I think the motion is interesting, I admit the blogger is ignorant.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']secession.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. Skipped spell check this time.

[quote name='evanft']A few state reps in an unimportant state propose bill.

Don't make threads anymore.[/QUOTE]

A lot of people in the forum have already been discussing this in other threads. Explain to me why it's not worthy to consolidate in it's own thread, please. After you've done that, explain why you keep clicking my threads when you fully intend to troll 100% of the time. Then explain why the ignore function is so hard for you to grasp.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']A lot of people in the forum have already been discussing this in other threads. Explain to me why it's not worthy to consolidate in it's own thread, please.[/quote]



BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE!!!
 
My sure to be unpopular opinion on these type of issues has long been:

Federalism was bad idea and will be the US's downfall as we move into a global society. Having sovereign states leads to divisiveness which will make it harder to compete with smaller unified countries.

We'd be better off with just the federal government, one set of laws for the whole country etc. and having county and city governments to oversee local services--police, courts (only dealing with the one set of national laws), jails, fire department, hosptials, infrastructure maintenance etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My sure to be unpopular opinion on these type of issues has long been:

Federalism was bad idea and will be the US's downfall as we move into a global society. Having sovereign states leads to divisiveness which will make it harder to compete with smaller unified countries.

We'd be better off with just the federal government, one set of laws for the whole country etc. and having county and city governments to oversee local services--police, courts (only dealing with the one set of national laws), jails, fire department, hosptials, infrastructure maintenance etc.[/QUOTE]

You already know I vehemently disagree with that, for too many reasons to list.

However, I can actually understand why that is appealing. It just requires massive, massive, massive faith in the leaders of your 'one' government, and their ability to stay uncorrupted. Given the track record we have so far, I don't think we will be ready for such a consolidation of power any time soon.
 
Really in what I just said the federal government wouldn't be doing much more. About all that's added to them power wise is to set a legal code for the country (that is then mainly enforced by county/city agencies). Otherwise they keep focusing on foreign policy and doling out money around the country--and I'd be ok with federal tax going down in favor of higher local taxes.

The main change is the state governments and agencies go away with their functions transferred to county/city government and agencies. In stead of state income tax, we'd have county income tax and so forth.
 
This bill appears to be little more than a "rah-rah" measure sponsored by Republican Representatives (and one Senator) in a state that's largely Democrat. It's as toothless as a proposed bill can be.

It's also theatre, and nothing to get excited about. Do you mean to tell me the expansion of federal government in size, scope, and cost has grown so much over the past 5 weeks that demands immediate action?

This theatre was closed, and not performing, from 2001-2008 when federal power grew, when members of this same party lauded executive privilege, never spoke out against Presidential Signing Statements, ensured us that the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Act were necessary, never once thought we should look into abuses of procedural and constitutional law in the forms of the removal of habeas corpus, the death of due process for the accused - that, in fact, we should be grateful the government was looking out for us! This is the party that wasn't rehearsing their lines to perform this play when we doubled the national debt it took us 224 years to acquire in just 8.

And now, in 5 weeks, they're threatening recession? Come on thrust...you're not as dense as a KingBroly. You should be able to see that this is nothing more than a charade. This is the same thing as the Republicans in the federal Congress getting more than they bargained for in the stimulus bill and STILL not voting for it. Especially if they are, as you like to remind us, the exact same party whether (d) or (r). This is crafted and rehearsed poppycock of the highest order, meant to get you riled up and excited like something is going to come of this.

On the other hand, I see Lucy holding a football and enticing Charlie Brown to run and kick it.
 
First of all, yes I did admit it's a symbolic charade. And that's fine with me. A lot of people labeled the boston tea party similarly.

Second, New Hampshire is the country's well known haven for libertarians. My coworker, the proudest card carrying libertarian I've ever known (fantastic web designer btw) constantly talked about how great New Hampshire is, and how most people in politics on both sides of the aisle are very libertarian at the core there. Last year he finally moved there, to be with his kind. It's worth noting that he was in love with Ron Paul and ended up doing some stuff for his website, I believe.

What this means is I don't translate this as some par-for-the-course partisan Republican game as you seem to. If you read it, it's clear they refer to many items of the past 8 years as well in their warning.

Also, many politicians on both sides of the aisle (Ron Paul is a great example) deviate severely from their party line on every issue you just pointed out in your post. Now while I don't care to spend the time to search for them, I have a strong feeling that you are wrong about New Hampshire republicans supporting or staying quiet for everything you listed, just like their hero Ron Paul didn't. And i don't think most run-of-the-mill Republicans would like or condone this motion.
 
That's where we're going to disagree: the timing of it *perfect* for the sort of thing other Republicans will rally around, whether they're of the systemic mega-spending-federal-power nutjob sort, or of the "I don't understand very much, so let's destroy everything and press the reset button" Ron Paul sort.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This theatre was closed, and not performing, from 2001-2008 when federal power grew, when members of this same party lauded executive privilege, never spoke out against Presidential Signing Statements, ensured us that the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Act were necessary, never once thought we should look into abuses of procedural and constitutional law in the forms of the removal of habeas corpus, the death of due process for the accused - that, in fact, we should be grateful the government was looking out for us! This is the party that wasn't rehearsing their lines to perform this play when we doubled the national debt it took us 224 years to acquire in just 8.[/QUOTE]

This is a pretty good list of reasons for rejecting the Republican Party. I just wanted to say I agree with the whole spiel.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Second, New Hampshire is the country's well known haven for libertarians. My coworker, the proudest card carrying libertarian I've ever known (fantastic web designer btw) constantly talked about how great New Hampshire is, and how most people in politics on both sides of the aisle are very libertarian at the core there.[/QUOTE]

I hear about this reputation a lot but I'm not convinced at all. Who won the primaries there last year? Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This is a pretty good list of reasons for rejecting the Republican Party. I just wanted to say I agree with the whole spiel.[/quote]

Who are you kidding? They say pro-life and you'll start salivating like Pavlov's dog.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's where we're going to disagree: the timing of it *perfect* for the sort of thing other Republicans will rally around, whether they're of the systemic mega-spending-federal-power nutjob sort, or of the "I don't understand very much, so let's destroy everything and press the reset button" Ron Paul sort.[/QUOTE]

Myke remind me again why I need a degree in Economics to understand it. To me some things seem like common sense, like since the Constitution grants the government the RIGHT to print it's own money without interest, why are we using the Fed? The Fed is a private entity that prints money for the U.S. and then charges interest on it. Does using it make ANY fucking sense given what I just listed?

I would argue they helped engineer the Great Depression then bought all the free companies for pennies on the dollar in the crash. I'm referring to one's that were established after Andrew Jackson got rid of the "Bank Of the United States" or that were able to free themselves afterwards. I wonder how many companies are now owned by the Fed and just have puppets that serve as the CEO's of the company.

Also I forgot to add the common sense that it's not a good thing to take in more product then you produce as that creates what we call a deficit. Also spending money then NOT taxing creates one as well. One could also argue you're indirectly stealing peoples money by this as well through an increase in inflation. I know I despise the fact a giant Homophobic prick like Erik Prince is getting tax money.

As much as I like some things about New Hampshire I don't like others. I'm Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Death Penalty, Pro-Gun Rights and Pro-Choice. Sadly New Hampshire doesn't fit into this exactly or they'd almost be what I consider the perfect state in the country, forbidding weather. Unfortunately it's like you can't be TOO Socially Liberal as a Libertarian in some respects.

Last but not least we do need to go back to States rights. The ideal solution for the future given the internet would be to have a weak Federal Government serving mainly just for defense of our country and a few other things as outlined in the Constitution. Past this the rest would be left up to the states. You see, I like my laws where their effects actually have to be seen by those who voted for them. With this you have to be a LOT more responsible. Oh and when I say this would be the ideal solution for the future I mean EVERYWHERE. China's strong Federal/Fascist government needs to die and make way for strong states rights there and so on.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Oh and when I say this would be the ideal solution for the future I mean EVERYWHERE. China's strong Federal/Fascist government needs to die and make way for strong states rights there and so on.[/QUOTE]

I totally disagree with you on strong states being an ideal solution, but I wanted to say I'm glad you identify China's government as fascist rather than communist. A lot of people talk about Red China this and that without really understanding what's going on.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I totally disagree with you on strong states being an ideal solution, but I wanted to say I'm glad you identify China's government as fascist rather than communist. A lot of people talk about Red China this and that without really understanding what's going on.[/QUOTE]

Have you heard of the book "Hand Of God"? It was written by a Taiwanese author and is banned by the Chinese government. It's about all the fucked up things corporations are getting away with there as long as China gets tax money from them. I don't remember if some of the examples I'm about to cite are just from the book or the article I read describing examples. Some things are this: One factory makes Soy Sauce from fermented human hair. Another factory recycles either 10 or 20K bottles but doesn't sanitize them. The list goes on I'm sure.
Rick what you want is a WEAK Federal Government ideally. The bottom line is that Big Government AND Big Business will always stab you in the back. This is why you vote with your dollar and keep them all comparatively weak by buying differently across the board, never ever giving x company leverage. You know the sad thing is we wouldn't have this problem with wealth and revolution if the mistake would just be fixed. If you own a company be transparent bookswise and be blunt with the employees: they make 40%, you make 30% and the shareholders make 30% off of all profits. Also if a Recession came I'd probably bump the number down to 25% at the time if I was the CEO for the entire length of the recession. I mean in terms of CEO pay by the way. Seriously playing it this way prevents you from having a union knocking down your door and from repeating these revolutionary mistakes.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Have you heard of the book "Hand Of God"? It was written by a Taiwanese author and is banned by the Chinese government. It's about all the fucked up things corporations are getting away with there as long as China gets tax money from them. I don't remember if some of the examples I'm about to cite are just from the book or the article I read describing examples. Some things are this: One factory makes Soy Sauce from fermented human hair. Another factory recycles either 10 or 20K bottles but doesn't sanitize them. The list goes on I'm sure.[/quote]

Haven't heard of the book but I'm not surprised at all.

Rick what you want is a WEAK Federal Government ideally. The bottom line is that Big Government AND Big Business will always stab you in the back.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why having a weak federal government doesn't really help.
 
These are now, apparently, called "Tenth Amendment's" being filed by multiple states recently.

Someone asked about Texas earlier. Here you go.
Full text of the bill.

This one has the strongest language I've seen so far of all the recent so-called "Tenth Amendment" lines in the sand from various states.

A few excerpts:
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
Click to expand...
therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed;
Click to expand...

My take on all this is that it's very much like a Wife(states) getting fed up with her boozing, gambling, cheating husband (Fed gov) and is putting her foot down saying that if it doesn't stop, divorce is imminent.

Edit: Came across some commentary about all this I really liked.

to everyone saying this texas resolution or any other states resolution is non binding has no teeth I say this.

Think of it this way its the first step in the right direction. first you pass a non binding resolution and send it to the feds to put them on notice and to "test" the water. then if the feds continue on like nothing happened or they step up actions in your state, then you pass the binding resolutions, and if that doesn't have the desired effect then you withdrawl your state from the union.

The thing most of you have to remember is, the state legislators are more in touch with the average person than the federal congressmen are. the states are seeing that we small people are getting fed up with the BS that is being shoved down our throats by the feds.

the states are also getting tired of the federal government taking their money and then giving it back to them with mandates on how they must spend it. Most of the states have come to the realization that they can spend the peoples money better than the federal government. right now 34 cents of every dollar is taken from the states and given back with federal mandates on how it must be spent.

The states are also getting tired of their militia's being forced into front line duty in the federal army. The national guard was not to be used in this role. they were never meant to be deployed outside of the U.S. they were to be used in defense of the homeland when the standing federal army was deployed outside the homeland.

Bottom line is the federal government has over stepped its bounds numerous times and the people and the states are getting tired of it. Under the constitution the federal government only has 3 jobs. and by the actions of the Federal government over the years they have nullified the constitution.
Click to expand...
 
I agree completely with the statement regarding the national guard. I still don't understand how anyone in national guard can be sent overseas. They're meant to protect this country, not a foreign one. Hell, it's in the name.
 
MMMM, I would love for some states to break away and form together. I would love for Canada to buy the NE USA out.

 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE!!![/QUOTE]
Don't get mad as hell. You'll be taking it for quite a bit longer.

[quote name='JolietJake']I agree completely with the statement regarding the national guard. I still don't understand how anyone in national guard can be sent overseas. They're meant to protect this country, not a foreign one. Hell, it's in the name.[/QUOTE]
The governor is the commander in chief of the national guard of each state. If they transfer that authority to the President, he can take them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah no kidding. Hey lilboo tell me what you think of this. I think we should rename the Frag Dolls, the Frag HAG Dolls as an affront to their looks. Basically saying they're ugly. I mean Hag Dolls doesn't work as well.
Oh and yeah I know they're attractive but I need something to slight them on based on my disgust on a group of girl's so into FPS gaming. I expect them to have more varied if not BETTER tastes.
 
...

Fire Emblem Fire Emblem Starcraft donkeys Fire Emblem treeplanting Starcraft dial-up penis zombies Fire Emblem fuck Alberta.

I hereby declare this thread derailed.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My take on all this is that it's very much like a Wife(states) getting fed up with her boozing, gambling, cheating husband (Fed gov) and is putting her foot down saying that if it doesn't stop, divorce is imminent.[/QUOTE]

Have you seen states' budgets recently? They're just as bad as the federal government, at least many of them. California and New York are probably the worst, along with Michigan.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Have you seen states' budgets recently? They're just as bad as the federal government, at least many of them. California and New York are probably the worst, along with Michigan.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure. But so far, I don't think any of those states have created a bill like this yet. I don't know, I'm still looking for a list of states that have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top