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

Perhaps the situation will be slightly more comprehensible if we mention the fact that New Hampshire has the largest legislature of any state, with something in the neighborhood of 400 members. With a size like that, it’s inevitable that some nuts manage to sneak in.

NH attracts more than its share of this kind of whacko, with its “Live Free or Die” stuff and its now-obsolescent “Pledge”. The Free State Project foolishness hasn’t helped, either.

Anyway, it takes nothing to introduce a bill (in my state, you don’t even have to be a legislator). Getting it passed is another thing, and incomprehensible in this case.

Just another nutter, move along now, nothing to see.

Article 1 of the Constitution deals with the composition and powers of Congress. The Constitution itself is not a terribly long or difficult read, and IMO every American should give it a good once over at some point.

Anyway, the relevant part of the Article is Section 8:

Sections 9 and 10 detail some things that Congress and the individual states may *not *do, which will be at least indirectly relevant to the questions in this thread. For now, I’m not going to pass judgement on whether the Congress (along with the national government in general) has overstepped its prescribed constitutional authority in the past 150 or so years.

OK. So NH decides it’s had enough and leaves. Is that good, bad, or indifferent? Besides those driving to Maine, would anyone notice?

I’ve barely driven into NH myself, so I really can’t say much about it. Would NH’s cecession have any major impact on the rest of us?

Nullification never flew before the Civil War and it ain’t gonna fly now.

As for the Tenth Amendment, based on the case-law history it means very little. (And nobody really knows what the Ninth means.)

Well, the thing that’s worried folks most about it since the start is precedent. I’d say that’s probably the major one here too.