HB1130 for 2024



Establishing a commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights.

1 Like

Am I wrong to think that if this bill passes it would be the
first state to PASS LEGISLATION to consider its own secession?

1 Like

I assume this bill will be debated on the House floor.
I think it would be wise to present what we have already
determined in an orderly manner.
What is below is the basics of how I’m seeing things.
I have never testified in any legislature, but I am willing to do so if I know at least four weeks ahead of time.
I am unfamiliar with protocols of the House, and perhaps someone else is better qualified than I to present it. That’s fine.
Also, any changes in wording, or any additions or subtractions, should be carefully considered before adoption.

Herewith, my presentation (about 7 minutes):

It was at Albany, New York, in 1754, at the Albany Congress, that the first real attempt to unite the 13 colonies under one government, for purposes of defense and other matters of concern to all 13 of the colonies. The Albany Plan was rejected.

During the ten years prior to 1776 the colonies were subjected to the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, the Mutiny Act, and others. The Currency Act was perhaps the most loathsome. When many of the colonies refused to comply, the British navy and soldiers were sent to the Americas to enforce compliance. Boston had been among the most egregious offenders. The Currency Act had placed those areas outside of Boston, in the counties, in the worst position. It was believed in London that if Boston could be forced to comply the counties would fall in line, out of fear.

It had the opposite effect. The counties of Massachusetts independently declared secession from England, and sent those declarations to the First Continental Congress in 1775. They urged their delegates to vote for a declaration of independence on behalf of the entire state.

It was about this time that London asked the commander of forces in the colonies, especially Boston, to ferret out any slight indication of treason. He could find none.

In 1777 the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America were drafted and accepted, but it went into force only after all thirteen colonies had signed on. This occurred in 1781. Article XIII is widely believed to imply that states could join or leave the Union only with consent of “the Legislatures of every State.”

Attempts to strengthen the Articles of Confederation failed, eventually leading to abandonment of the Articles of Confederation, and adoption of a new constitution. Articles of Confederation were dropped and the Constitution replaced them. Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation was NOT brought forward into the new Constitution. Article IV of the present constitution replaces Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation.

It is interesting to note that each state would have to secede from the Articles of Confederation before joining the union of states under the new constitution. John Adams wrote that it would be better to part as friends than to continue on together in a state of tensions that might tear apart the union anyway.

By the time Jefferson was elected in 1800 the New England states were considering secession from the new United States. The Hartford Convention met in 1814, but eventually rejected secession.

Things just got worse as new states were incorporated into the United States. Just a few years after the Hartford Convention adjourned, some southern states, citing unfair economic treatment, began to talk of secession again. North Carolina stated emphatically that if Lincoln were elected as president, it would secede. He was, and it did.

Ordinances of secession were put to the voters of other southern states, and every state voted to secede. These ordinances and the vote are freely available online.

After the Civil War, in Texas v… White, the supreme court cited the Articles of Confederation to prove that the states had not really seceded, because it was impossible under law to do so. He actually said that the Constitution prohibited it. This has since been called “bad law” by other modern justices. Furthermore, the case was, I believe, a contracts case, and the point of law establishing the inability to legally secede was cited as a done deal, while in fact the concept had never been challenged in court.

All talk of secession in the first hundred years or so of the Union have been based in one way or another on maltreatment of some states, and favoritism toward other states, on the part of the central government.

Those of us who are active in the secession movement have looked in depth at the question of legality, and we have no doubts that it would NOT be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, or the United States Code. We have especially looked at the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution, and Title 18 of the United States Code which covers criminal activity.

We know that it is NOT treason to speak of secession, and the first amendment has often been cited.

We know that it is in violation of federal law to use violence or force in any way.

We know that the oaths many of us took to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” or to uphold the laws of the United States will not be violated, since neither the Constitution nor the United States Code speaks of secession.

Many of us have promised to accept the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States, and there is no reason to believe that secession would change that.

We all have our reasons for wanting secession. In NH we are attempting to proceed peacefully.

What we need is an understanding by the government of NH and the people in general of what might happen if secession succeeds.

Thus, the reason why this committee should be enabled.

We need to communicate this information to ALL the citizens of NH.

But… if this committee reflects only the preconceived ideas and philosophical outlooks of the present it will have all been in vain.

We need to have openness, with the people, and of the mind. We need to have a realistic attitude about what CAN work in a post-secession world of the near-future, not based on the current level of readiness, but on the desires of the populace and resources that we can reasonably expect to muster in the next few years given the will to do it.

Without a REALISTIC appraisal of the question of secession, and a REALISTIC expectation for the future, we can succeed in improving the lives of ALL of the people of NH.

I do not expect this study committee to actually implement any changes. But we need to have a basis for future actions. Another group of people, composed of scientists, technicians, and systems analysts will need to be assembled for that task.

If this committee is not approved, it is likely, I think, that a hit-and-miss approach will produce something based entirely on the prejudices of individuals, in competition with each other, and we will likely be less well-off rather than more.

I must therefore ask you to vote this committee into existence, and encourage consultation of each of the specialists with others of their own special field of expertise.

David E. Sanders

1 Like

Included in the bill wording: “What currency would an independent New Hampshire use?”

and it says the cmte would include
“(l) The president of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.”

I always like to say independence would just give NH the freedom to mismanage its own affairs…this bill starts that process officially. Without any obvious mismanagement yet. Slovenija would really have benefited from this kind of process in the 80s but they never got it… we are lucky to have it and Santonastaso. .


some updates


1 Like

There will be discussion in the committee hearing. We will let you know when that happens.

1 Like

One of the items discussed:

“What are the fiscal implications of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign rights?”



1 Like

That should read “Only with a REALISTIC appraisal…”

In addition, you might ask why I included the Albany Congress, since it was before even the
Articles of Confederation. It was apparent from the very beginning that the colonies were
not eager to unite. The Albany Congress failed, the Articles of Confederation were a
disaster, and the Hartford Convention is evidence that just 25 years after the Constitution
they were again talking about breaking up union.

Remember, that the same same people who we call our “Forefathers of the Nation”
were also the ones who on three separate occasions in the span of 60 years (1754-1814)
either failed to unite the colonies, or tried to disunite them. Granted that some came
earlier and some later, but most were around in 1787 when the constitution
was finally approved.

1 Like

If you have not been reading the “TEXIT moving ahead” thread, please
do. What is happening in Texas adds urgency to implementation of
HB1130. To summarize and relate it to HB1130:

TEXIT has garnered more than 100,000 signatures to put a referendum
on the Republican primary ballot (this is just the way it’s done in Texas).
The ballot will read (as I currently have it) “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an
independent nation?”.
If a majority of Republicans say “yes” in sufficient numbers in the March
primary, it could lead them to put it on the November ballot.

There are already two planks of the Republican platform that address secession.

Republicans have the edge in Texas, so if the March vote is overwhelmingly
“yes”, it is unlikely that the Democrats would have enough power to override
them in November.

If Texas secedes, they would take their electoral college votes with them.
Without those electoral college votes it would be impossible for the rest
of the nation to ever elect a Republican president.

That being the case, it has been suggested that other red states,
seeing that they could never get another Republican president, would
also attempt secession, and perhaps join Texas in some kind of

That would include New Hampshire… but the final report of the
HB1130 committee is not due until 2025 (January?).

This adds a certain urgency to those proceedings.
It might not play out this way, but then again, it might.

A recent addition to the states talking about secession is
Florida, and if Texas goes, Florida would likely be right
behind them.

1 Like

State-Federal Committee:


CACR20 - Secession after US debt hits $40T:


HB1130 - Secession Committee:


no official date yet for testimony … but maybe Friday the 12th

1 Like

both on January 12th 9am and 1015

1 Like


8min of NH House Committee testimony on NH Secession

1 Like

Both CACR20 and HB1130 were unanimously ITLed.

There was, however, some understanding on the part of
two reps that HB1130 was intended to answer questions
regarding secession.
However, there was still the belief that White v Texas forbade
secession, and therefore secession was outside the jurisdiction
of the legislature so it would have been futile to legislate.
They are still stuck on White v Texas, without looking at the
entire history of the subject.

Question: Is there an easy way to email the entire legislature
at once? If so, when I finish the analysis of the history of the
legality of secession I will email it to every member of the
legislature. It might need some polishing for this purpose,
but I believe it can be done in a way that any legislator will

1 Like

check with alu axelman, i think he has a list of all rep emails tho it will be 30 percent inaccurate roughly, due to being from last session.

he’s probably reachable at the liberty block if you google it

1 Like

A few seconds of Carla Gericke’s testimony has been posted
by Texas Nationalist Movement (Daniel Miller).
That means that now not only have New Hampshirites seen
it (if they are following), but all 600,000 members of TNM in
Texas have seen it (if they are following).

1 Like

Podcast with Stephen Villee

Another reason to run away from the US government:

Subsidizing EVs