SECOND State Secession Bill Filed In New Hampshire Legislature

Originally published at: SECOND State Secession Bill Filed In New Hampshire Legislature | Free Keene

NEW HAMPSHIRE – For the first time in the state’s recorded history, legislators in the New Hampshire House of Representatives have filed two bills aimed at giving voters the opportunity to vote on whether or not New Hampshire will peacefully secede from the United States of America.

State Representative Matthew Santonastaso (R – Cheshire 18) has sponsored a groundbreaking new bill that will force the creation of a Secession Study Committee in the Granite State. This comes on the heels of a bill filed recently by State Rep. Jason Gerhard (R – Merrimack 25) that if passed, would allow voters to amend the New Hampshire Constitution, declaring that the state will secede from the United States should the national debt reach a staggering $40 trillion.

The Secession Study Committee, as envisioned by the bill, won’t just be a cursory look into New Hampshire declaring its peaceful independence from the United States. It will delve into understanding the multifaceted implications, the potential benefits, and the challenges that New Hampshire might face if it were to consider seceding from the Union. This initiative underscores the urgency and importance of having a well-informed discussion on the subject.

Representative Santonastaso stated,“Given the current challenges at the federal level and potential unforeseen changes in the national landscape, it’s essential to study the feasibility of an independent New Hampshire. This effort is not about neglecting our shared history; it’s about proactive planning and ensuring our state shall persist under any circumstance.”

Carla Gericke, President Emeritus of New Hampshire’s Free State Project, weighed in on the matter, stating “The increase in the number of New Hampshireites, and now our legislators, who support peacefully exiting the Union, is indicative of the Biden admin’s complete and utter failure to represent the interests of our state. The federal government have nobody to thank but themselves for the inevitable result – more and more of us want to choose freedom.”

Matt Sabourin dit Choinière, the chairman of the New Hampshire Independence Political Action Committee, commented “The purpose of these bills is to get the tough questions relating to independence out on the table, and then get some answers to the public, it’s basically an outline for future grand national strategy. My father always said growing up that if a private business were to operate the same way as the government, they’d be locked in prison. It’s time to fire D.C.”

In the state’s 2022 legislative session, the House rejected a proposal that would give voters the opportunity to amend the New Hampshire constitution, allowing the state to peacefully declare independence from the United States. While opponents of New Hampshire’s secessionist movement have historically argued that the federal government is a net positive or at the least can be molded into one, proponents have argued that the federal government is too far gone – citing issues such as inflation, ongoing wars abroad, and healthcare. New Hampshire is one of approximately 25 states that pays more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal funding.

Once introduced, both bills will move to committee for further discussion and review. If passed, the Secession Study Committee would be comprised of members from both the House and Senate, as well as experts in economics, law, and governance. Their findings would be presented to the state legislature for consideration.

For the full press release see:

As a suggestion, I suggest that a major point to be investigated by
this Study Committee might be the great number of federal regulations
and articles of the United States Code that would be possible subjects
of future NH nullification.
Also, the great number of NH laws that would be changed or eliminated
that are currently in place only because they are required to get federal
funding or other federal support (Bearcat incident comes to mind).
In other words, how would our RSA be changed if it didn’t have to comply
with federal law.

In one area I know of: White Mountain National Forest requires more
clothing required, to cover certain areas, than NH does. If the White
Mountain National Forest returned to NH custody, that would automatically
nullify the federal requirement that females cover their breasts pretty
thoroughly, and everyone cover their genitals more thoroughly than is
now required in NH.
Required background checks for weapons also comes to mind.
Asset forfeiture, still largely under federal control even with the
states trying to do what they can about stopping it.
While the DEA is trying to bring states into line with a looser
marijuana law, this still does not eliminate weed use in NH.
This might be a point of contention in the future.
I’ll bet there are hundreds of other examples. But I don’t
want the Committee to discuss just financial/economic issues.