The Constitutional Case for NH Independence (CACR 32)

NH Exit
#1

I’m about to send this to NH state reps…any suggested improvements or corrections?

The Constitutional Case for NH Independence (CACR 32)

RepFolk: Sorry I couldn’t e-mail all 400 of you individually, but there isn’t time. Meanwhile, here is why you should feel “Constitutionally comfortable” voting for CACR 32: the right of the people to decide whether we keep being ruled by an empire that starts a new war on our dime every three years or so.

What’s nice about the U.S. Constitution is that you generally don’t have to be a “Constitutional scholar” to understand it.

  1. The Tenth Amendment makes the U.S. Constitution innocent of banning independence, until proven guilty. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” By default, “the powers,” thus includes the power of states and/or their voters to divorce D.C. In order for the U.S. to lawfully wield a power preventing that, such power would have to be “delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Where does that Constitution clearly grant such power to D.C.? Why are the “anti-independence” Constitutional passages cited so unclear on this question, compared to the clarity of “The Tenth?”

  2. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Constitutional arguments against independence were valid…that leaves a different problem for Remainers. No one could credibly argue that the U.S. government has complied with its Constitution…not even during the last two hours, let alone the last two centuries. Have they voided their contract, perhaps millions of times? If they are not required to follow their Constitution, why are we?

  3. If one could argue that the U.S. Constitution forbids the public from voting on independence this year, one could just as easily argue that the pre-existing NH Constitution demands it this year. Article 10 reads: “…whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.” Has Washington endangered - or not endangered - “public liberty?” Are you currently able to “redress” your grievances with D.C.?

  4. You face, perhaps for the first time, legislation which would actually end the central government’s practice of running employment bans and overseas TORTURE CHAMBERS** at NH taxpayer expense. Why have some of your House colleagues apparently picked this moment to begin pretending they follow either Constitution?

Dave Ridley
NHexit.com

** Bagram torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia

2 Likes
#2

Dave,

Excellent piece of writing!

Only a few suggestions:

#2, end: If they are not BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE to follow their Constitution, why “WOULD WE BE?”

#3, end: Please add something like, “They most certainly have endangered liberty – in innumerable ways.” This for those in your target audience who will need it spelled out, who may still be in denial.

In addition, maybe add a reminder in closing that a vote in favor of CACR 32 is not in itself a direct vote for or against independence, it is only a vote to allow this historical measure to be voted on by the VOTERS to decide their own fate.

If you truly represent your voters’ best interests, you must support CACR 32 so that it can reach the voters.

Thank you (for your careful consideration of this matter).

[end of Shayna’s comments]

1 Like
#3

Within that Constitution, independence is the Tenth Amendment’s race to lose. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United […]

This run on sentence seems like you edited it and doesn’t make sense?
What is a “the Tenth Amendment’s race to lose.”?

1 Like
#4

Below is the version that I actually sent out; I was able to incorporate only some of the suggestions, but all were appreciated:

The Constitutional Case for NH Independence (CACR 32)

RepFolk: Here are some reasons you should feel “Constitutionally comfortable” voting for CACR 32…the right of the people to vote on whether we keep being ruled by an empire that starts a new war at our expense every three years or so.

What’s nice about the U.S. Constitution is that you generally don’t have to be a “Constitutional scholar” to understand it.

  1. The Tenth Amendment makes the U.S. Constitution innocent of banning independence, until proven guilty. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” By default, “the powers,” thus includes the power of states and/or their voters to divorce D.C. In order for the U.S. to lawfully wield a power preventing that, such power would have to be “delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Where does that Constitution clearly grant such power to D.C.? Why are the “anti-independence” Constitutional passages cited so unclear on this question when compared to the clarity of “The Tenth?”

  2. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Constitutional arguments against independence were valid…that leaves a different problem for Remainers. No one could credibly argue that the U.S. government has complied with its Constitution…not even during the last two hours, let alone the last two centuries. Have they voided their contract, perhaps millions of times? If they are not required to follow their Constitution, why are we?

  3. If one could argue that the U.S. Constitution forbids the public from voting on independence this year, one could just as easily argue that the pre-existing NH Constitution demands it this year. Article 10 reads: “…whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.” Has Washington endangered - or not endangered - “public liberty?” Are you currently able to “redress” your grievances with D.C.?

  4. You face, perhaps for the first time, legislation which would actually end the central government’s practice of running employment bans and overseas TORTURE CHAMBERS* at NH taxpayer expense. Why have some of your House colleagues apparently picked this moment to begin pretending they follow either Constitution?

Dave Ridley
NHexit.com
“Independence without enmity”

1 Like
#5

Responses starting to come in:

"Dave, There are absolutely NO reasons to feel comfortable with the request to secede from the United States. You are disrespecting active military, veterans and those that died on 9/11. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Timothy T. Egan

Grafton Dist #2 - Franconia, Lisbon, Lyman, Monroe & Sugar Hill"

I’ve sent this to him in reply:

"Thanks for the response, Rep. Egan.

< < You are disrespecting active military, veterans and those that died on 9/11 > >

At least we didn’t seize 15 percent of your income and use it to fund this war crime:

Haditha massacre - Wikipedia "

1 Like