New Hampshire legislation -- beginnings of a civil war or what?

[BrandonR]

I haven’t seen any discussion of this but it does look interesting… So what is everyone’s take on it? Do we have the beginning of a civil war here (half-jokingly, I sincerely doubt it will ever get close to that point)? Or just a state re-affirming that it’s the alpha dog and not the feds? What are the consequences of this going to be?

If the site is slow it’s because it’s currently suffering the Digg effect.

[bouv]

So the site doesn’t want to load at all…can you provide a summary? I live right next door to NH and I haven’t heard of any “big legislation news” that you might be referring to…

[kaylasdad99]

According to the text of the OP’s second link, it’s not legislation; it’s a resolution. And it’s only been introduced, not passed, as of yet.

That’s said, I’d also be grateful to learn which of the “certain actions by the federal government” are being declared void.

@Digg link

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday 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.”

OP?

[BrandonR]

If the original link doesn’t load, try this one: Hal Turner Show: New Hampshire talks Civil War against feds!

Try to ignore the source of this URL, as Wikipedia says some interesting things about this Hal Turner character.

Here’s the text of the resolution: HCR 0006

[hotflungwok]

From the resolution as listed in the link:

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; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” 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; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

From the other stuff in the link:

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.

Them sounds like fightin woids to me.

[obfusciatrist]

It appears to be an article about this:

HCR-6 (a bill submitted to the New Hamphsire house). A quick reading suggests it is a bill saying that New Hampshire will hold the federal government to the 10th Amendment.

Supposing it did get passed, I guess it would depend on what they decided was an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government and how far they were willing to go to reject it.

Down at the bottom it lists six examples, mostly aimed at policy suggestions you’ve kind of heard from the new administration. Such as mandatory national service (other than wartime draft) would be a nullification of the constitution.

[kaylasdad99]

Okay, I was able to find Digg’s source article. Seems that a NH legislator noticed that the text of the Constitution, enumerates certain specified powers that are held by the federal government (establishing forms of legal tender, punishing treason, etc.). It further seems that the resolution points out that large swathes of the U.S.C. purport to be makng laws that fall utside the strict parameters ot that list.

Big waste of time and energy, imho. The only thing noteworthy about it, as far as I can tell, is that the silly season is supposed to be in the summer, not the middle of winter.

[elfkin477]

Um…what? The page won’t load for me, but whatever this is about, it’s not even being mentioned on the local news, so it doesn’t seem too serious. NH is a strange place - remember when Portsmouth wanted to become part of Alaska to escape the state-wide property tax? That turned out to be a lot of hot air too.

[Little_Nemo]

I have to say this. That’s one of the most poorly written documents I’ve ever read. Consider this:

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism – free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go.

I feel this sentence would have benefitted from a little editing. (ETA: I should point out I actually did edit it down - this is only one section of the original sentence that ran on for eleven sections.)

[BrandonR]

Sheesh. Has no legislator ever heard of the concept of concise writing? I’m beginning to think lawmakers are part of a huge conspiracy where ordinary citizens have to hire lawyers just to decipher laws for them.

[Ocean_Annie]

I think this is a hoax.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Ocean_Annie

I think this is a hoax.

No, it’s on the New Hampshire Legislature web site. The resolution has been introduced by four members of the NH Legislature.

[Ocean_Annie]

@Freddy_the_Pig

No, it’s on the New Hampshire Legislature web site. The resolution has been introduced by four members of the NH Legislature.

It sure is. Thanks for clarifying.

There seems to be a mini movement. And I thought the new Populist caucus was exciting.

http://www.newhampshireresolution.com/Progreports.htm

[Deeg]

Doesn’t this kind of thing happen every few years in some state or another?

[mswas]

@hotflungwok

From the resolution as listed in the link:

From the other stuff in the link:
Them sounds like fightin woids to me.

It would be worth fighting for if it was credible.

[DrCube]

I hear this kind of argument often – we should follow the CONSTITUTION!!! and only the CONSTITUTION!!! and any laws made by the federal government that weren’t written down by a 250 year old dead guy are NULL AND VOID!!!.

But I want to ask: What’s with all this “Congress” business? If the Constitution really meant for power to reside entirely with the states, why set up a legislature at all? Isn’t their main duty to write new laws? The Constitution isn’t the bible, to be read literally as scripture and never to be tampered with. It set up at the very beginning a body whose job is to make new laws, and it sets out a method for amending itself, too.

I think the Constitution is an amazing document, and the Founding Fathers were very intelligent, but I just don’t get the fundamentalist attitudes regarding them.

[Xan]

@DrCube

I hear this kind of argument often – we should follow the CONSTITUTION!!! and only the CONSTITUTION!!! and any laws made by the federal government that weren’t written down by a 250 year old dead guy are NULL AND VOID!!!.

But I want to ask: What’s with all this “Congress” business? If the Constitution really meant for power to reside entirely with the states, why set up a legislature at all? Isn’t their main duty to write new laws? The Constitution isn’t the bible, to be read literally as scripture and never to be tampered with. It set up at the very beginning a body whose job is to make new laws, and it sets out a method for amending itself, too.

I think the Constitution is an amazing document, and the Founding Fathers were very intelligent, but I just don’t get the fundamentalist attitudes regarding them.

What’s the point of having a Constitution if we’re going to ignore it when it’s inconvenient? Are you trying to say the Federal government should be able to ignore parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like?

[DrCube]

@Xan

What’s the point of having a Constitution if we’re going to ignore it when it’s inconvenient? Are you trying to say the Federal government should be able to ignore parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like?

No, I contend that the Constitution doesn’t say things have to stay exactly as they were in 1789, and that there are perfectly legitimate ways that we’ve changed both its text and its interpretation over the years.

I’m not qualified at this point to comment on the facts of the NH case. But in general, I disagree with Constitutional fundamentalists.

[Polycarp]

So, everybody slept through high school American History? John C. Calhoun is sitting on a cloud somewhere, watching this and smirking.

[Lumpy]

Ok, I for one could use a basic constitutional law primer here. What laws does the federal Congress have the authority to make and enforce? What are they forbidden to legislate? Is it the case that most federal laws today rest on vastly expanded interpretations of an originally vague mandate (“interstate commerce”)?