“In our discussion, some Republican members were more concerned with whether secession from the United States could be successfully implemented than with the concept itself. The committee chair, a member of House Republican leadership, said he agreed with the concept of secession and lamented how that a sufficient plan does not currently exist to carry it out.

“All state representatives took an oath of office to uphold the Unites States Constitution. It is shameful that New Hampshire Republicans are so openly advocating to leave the United States of America,” Piedra said.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-that-could-not-survive-secession.html/

https://libertyblock.com/police-nh-after-secession/

—---------

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.

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?”
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?
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.?
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”

—---------

title

Amendment gets voted down by Committee but keeps chugging through the process mid-February

Articles of Secession: How our systems would function (better) in an independent New Hampshire

title

You are here

Amendment gets voted down by Committee but keeps chugging through the process mid-February

Articles of Secession: How our systems would function (better) in an independent New Hampshire

User login