There are a series of steps that I have, for some time, felt would likely be most appropriate for moving New Hampshire independence forward. I have not taken them because of ethical constraints related to the issue of submitting things to the legislature. If you ask a rep to submit a bill or resolution, that is thought to cost about $2,000 of taxpayer money. Since I can’t afford to personally re-imburse taxpayers or the state government, it has been a matter of waiting until one or more people step forward and volunteer to do that part. Such a development, especially if it happens without me going out on a limb to fund-raise, would also indicate that the time for independence legislation is closer to being ripe. It would indicate things are beginning to “happen by themselves,” without any individual needing to overextend herself.
Last night, it happened…and as expected, it was unexpected. During a call to Free Talk Live I mentioned the above in passing…and in response two hosts (Aria DiMezzo and Ian Freeman) publicly volunteered to fund the reimbursement of taxpayers in some form or fashion.
Episode - July 13th 2021 | Free Talk Live
Despite, or perhaps because of, all the physical terror and financial loss Washington has inflicted on them, these two Crypto Sixers have taken without pause this decision. They have chosen to help strike back, at the root, at their own expense. Some steps may need to be taken to firm up or clarify their commitments, but these are not unreliable people and their representations are appreciated. A complete public agreement will likely be reached…and perhaps for the first time in New Hampshire history the taxpayers can be spared the cost of a legislative proposal.
As I understand it, there are roughly four alternative options by which we could engage/deploy the legislature. All four would probably start with me approaching a number of state reps and asking them to submit something for a vote. Just need one to say yes.
Option #1: The (simplest) option would be a House and/or Senate resolution. This is so simple, I’ve already written a draft version myself.
“We the undersigned members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, do call upon the Federal government of the United States…to leave New Hampshire, that it may begin governing itself as a friendly independent nation.”
- The advantages of this option are that it is probably the hardest one to screw up and is probably still enough of a move forward… to generate buzz and put NH in roughly the #2 spot. By that I mean we’d be the state which is second-furthest-along on the independence highway…a significant and potentially lifesaving achievement. It also possibly takes an approach that has not be taken much before by calling on them to leave us rather than us to leave them…at a time when they are leaving Afghanistan. This might provide a new path for small entities to trod away from big ones.
- The disadvantages in this are that it would be non-binding, would not go to a vote of the general public and would not begin addressing the details of our independence.
Option #2: The second option (maybe) would be a constitutional amendment, perhaps reading very roughly as follows: “All provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution, and all New Hampshire state laws empowering Federal rule over New Hampshire, are nullified. New Hampshire declares itself an independent nation.”
- The advantages of this option are
) It eventually could go to a vote of the general public
) It might help get around the problems a law would have… i.e. it presumably could not be trumped by the constitution or overruled by the NH supreme court.
- The disadvantages are:
) It requires a yes vote from 2/3rds of those voting…possibly including all the politicians it would have to go through before getting to the ballot.
) I’m not sure it could be done this way… can a Constitutional amendment worded along these lines …overrule a law or constitutional provision that preceded it? Or would some other complex series of “constitutionalisms” and repeals have to be undertaken to avoid failure?
Option #3: The third (slightly more complex) option would be legislation “creating a study committee to make recommendations regarding the most effective and expeditious method by which New Hampshire may attain the status of an independent republic on friendly terms with the United States”
- The advantages of this option are:
) We have a roadmap and stateside precedent in the form of the Texas secession-study-committee legislation: 87(R) HB 1359 - Introduced version - Bill Text
) The committee would be inclusive of our ideological adversaries, allowing them and their allies exposure to their own nascent concerns about Washington.
) It would see problems and maybe solutions that you and I don’t
) It could provide a lot more knowledge regarding the nuts and bolts of how independence could be done. - The disadvantages of this option are:
) The study committee would probably not come into existence at all on the first try…I think it would require a majority vote of the whole House and maybe Senate. Voting on a “leave NH” resolution might be more interesting to the public than voting on a study committee.
) It would require a lot of “care and feeding” (of the watchdog variety) over perhaps years.
) It might be non-inclusive of our ideological allies.
) It might get nowhere, as committees tend to do
Option #4: The Fourth (probably most complete) option would be legislation along the lines that state rep Caleb Dyer was proposing around 2017…a package of legislation and/or constitutional amendments which, taken together, would repeal all of the legislative or constitutional provisions which enable Federal rule over NH.
- I do not understand this option well enough to articulate its advantages or disadvantages. However, we do know that when Dyer started down this path it came to nothing. He achieved angry pushback and grief without so much as a committee hearing or major media article I’m aware of. On the other hand, it might not be appropriate to dismiss what amounted to his initial best judgment as a libertarian legislator closer to the scene than most of us are.
All of the options above except perhaps #4 would I think be guaranteed committee hearings, committee votes and votes of at least the full House… so long as one state rep submits it, does not withdraw it, and orders it removed from the consent calendar before the general vote.
A couple of observations from successful secessionists have guided this post: One of the Quebecois activists pointed out that merely having a vote on Quebec independence was a big success… and he’s right. Quebec has wrung all kinds of concessions out of the Canadian central government. The Texas nationalists had impressive success just by getting legislation to a committee that killed it. They made this real and did it with charm and style.
So there is a case to be made that just taking one step forward is the most important thing. For me I guess that one, most important step is getting something in front of a committee and hopefully on some front pages. We should also bear in mind the importance of timing…NH independence probably will happen, but it will mostly not be up to us. The central government will make it happen by doing something terrible that puts the public in a desperate state or on our side…historically speaking,
modern-state secessions tend to go from very-unlikely to very-likely… in a very short period of time. Look how far Slovenija and Estonia were from independence in 1985…but they were independent 6 years later. The hyperinflation which preceded their independence is probably coming to us as well…but perhaps not in 2022. Perhaps we are early and should bear that in mind. On the other hand, we are at a moment where there is a GOP legislature and a Dem FedGov. That will help and it would be reasonable to expect that things only align that way about once every 10 years. Lastly, speaking of Estonia, independence came when the Moscow government officially agreed to it. That is one path perhaps we do have open…focusing on Washington’s disposition toward NH rather than NH disposition toward Washington.
So: Now that I have probably sealed my eventual fate by moving forward with this proposal-good-for-NH-but-unhealthy-to-its-proposer…
Which of these options do you think is best and why?
What problems and miswordings do you see that I have not seen?
Is there an Option #5?
Here is background discussion of the issue: