Podcast version:
http://podcast.nhexit.org/index.php?name=2023-12-11-nhexit.12.11.2023.ogg
---------------
The best radio shows to call about NHexit according to Dave Ridley
https://forum.shiresociety.com/t/nh-radio-shows-you-can-call-and-get-on-...
—---------------
TEXIT has garnered more than 100,000 signatures to put a referendum on the Republican primary ballot (this is just the way it’s done in Texas). The ballot will read (as I currently have it) “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”.
If a majority of Republicans say “yes” in sufficient numbers in the March primary, it could lead them to put it on the November ballot.
There are already two planks of the Republican platform that address secession.
Republicans have the edge in Texas, so if the March vote is overwhelmingly “yes”, it is unlikely that the Democrats would have enough power to override them in November.
If Texas secedes, they would take their electoral college votes with them. Without those electoral college votes it would be impossible for the rest of the nation to ever elect a Republican president.
That being the case, it has been suggested that other red states, seeing that they could never get another Republican president, would also attempt secession, and perhaps join Texas in some kind of confederation.
That would include New Hampshire… but the final report of the HB1130 committee is not due until 2025 (January?).
This adds a certain urgency to those proceedings. It might not play out this way, but then again, it might.
A recent addition to the states talking about secession is Florida, and if Texas goes, Florida would likely be right behind them.
Leif Alexander
—-----
No Duty to Submit videos:
https://www.youtube.com/@nodutytosubmit6996
Bear Arms email address:
libertywithoutlicense@gmail.com
—--------
Give Me Liberty, Not Income Tax: Interview with Stephen Villee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y999hpnOeQQ
—---------
Pretty interesting bill in New Hampshire - HB1156:
"The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization shall have no jurisdiction in New Hampshire."
https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=1244&type=4
Official text of bill
—---------------
10th Amendment Center
Don’t Try, They’ll Crush You!
https://www.youtube.com/live/BgGZb7hot88
—------
Texas Preps Vote On SECESSION, 2024 Could Bring CIVIL WAR As MORE People Call For National Divorce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=9QzHmYfjkqA
—------------------------
HB 1130 - AS INTRODUCED
2024 SESSION
24-2659
11/10
HOUSE BILL 1130
AN ACT establishing a commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights.
SPONSORS: Rep. Santonastaso, Ches. 18
COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a statutory commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
24-2659
11/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty Four
AN ACT establishing a commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Commission for Sovereign State Rights. Amend RSA 1 by inserting after section 13 the following new section:
1:13-a Commission Established; Secession. There is established a commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights.
I. Notwithstanding RSA 14:49, the members of the commission shall be as follows:
(a) Three members of the house of representatives, including one member from the state-federal relations and veterans affairs committee, and one member from the executive departments and administration committee, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.
(b) Two members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate.
(c) A member of the public, appointed by the governor.
(d) A member of the public, appointed by the speaker of the house.
(e) A member of the public, appointed by the senate president.
(f) The attorney general, or designee.
(h) One member representing the Business and Industry Association, appointed by the association.
(i) One member of the New Hampshire Medical Society, appointed by the society.
(j) One member representing the university system of New Hampshire knowledgeable in political science and state creation, appointed by the chancellor.
(k) One representative from the division of travel and tourism development, appointed by the division director.
(l) The president of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.
II. Legislative members of the commission shall receive mileage at the legislative rate when attending to the duties of the commission.
III. The commission shall study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights. The commission shall consider the following questions:
What are the fiscal implications of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign rights?
What currency would an independent New Hampshire use?
How would interstate travel and commerce be managed?
How would law enforcement and criminal justice function in an independent state?
What would New Hampshire's domestic energy policy look like?
What health care system would be in place?
How would New Hampshire defend itself against domestic and foreign threats?
What would be the impact on federal entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare?
Under what circumstances would asserting sovereign rights be most viable?
What would citizenship and naturalization processes look like?
What would be New Hampshire's immigration policy?
How would properties currently under federal or interstate jurisdiction be managed or negotiated?
How would residents who oppose independence be treated?
What would be the status of current foreign nationals and U.S. permanent residents in New Hampshire?
Which international bodies and nation-states could be allies or partners following an affirmative independence vote?
IV. The members of the study commission shall elect a chairperson from among the members. The first meeting of the commission shall be called by the first-named house member. The first meeting of the commission shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. Five members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.
V. The commission shall file both an interim and final report. The reports shall outline:
(a) The best, worst, and most likely scenarios for secession;
(b) Strategies for maintaining an amicable relationship with the United States, if applicable;
(c) The answers to the questions in paragraph III.
VI. The commission shall report its interim findings to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2024. The commission shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2025.
2 Repeal. RSA 1:13-a, relative to a commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting its sovereign state rights, is repealed.
3 Effective Date.
I. Section 2 of this act shall take effect November 1, 2025.
II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.
—---------------------------------------------------—-------------------
It was at Albany, New York, in 1754, at the Albany Congress, that the first real attempt to unite the 13 colonies under one government, for purposes of defense and other matters of concern to all 13 of the colonies. The Albany Plan was rejected.
During the ten years prior to 1776 the colonies were subjected to the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, the Mutiny Act, and others. The Currency Act was perhaps the most loathsome. When many of the colonies refused to comply, the British navy and soldiers were sent to the Americas to enforce compliance. Boston had been among the most egregious offenders. The Currency Act had placed those areas outside of Boston, in the counties, in the worst position. It was believed in London that if Boston could be forced to comply the counties would fall in line, out of fear.
It had the opposite effect. The counties of Massachusetts independently declared secession from England, and sent those declarations to the First Continental Congress in 1775. They urged their delegates to vote for a declaration of independence on behalf of the entire states.
It was about this time that London asked the commander of forces in the colonies, especially Boston, to ferret out any slight indication of treason. He could find none.
In 1777 the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America were drafted and accepted, but it went into force only after all thirteen colonies had signed on. This occurred in 1781. Atricle XIII is widely believed to imply that states could join or leave the Union only with consent of “the Legislatures of every State.”
Attempts to strengthen the Articles of Confederation failed, eventually leading to abandonment of the Articles of Confederation, and adoption of a new constitution. Articles of Confederation were dropped and the Constitution replaced them. Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation was NOT brought forward into the new Constitiution. Article IV of the present constitution replaces Title 13 of the Articles of Confederation.
It is interesting to note that each state would have to secede from the Articles of Confederation before joining the union of states under the new constitution. John Adams wrote that it would be better to part as friends than to continue on together in a state of tensions that might tear apart the union anyway.
By the time Jefferson was elected in 1800 the New England states were considering secession from the new United States. The Hartford Convention met in 1814, but eventually rejected secession.
Things just got worse as new states were incorporated into the United States. Just a few years after the Hartford Convention adjourned, some southern states, citing unfair economic treatment, began to talk of secession again. North Carolina stated emphatically that if Lincoln were elected as president, they would secede. He was, and it did.
Ordinances of secession were put to the voters of other southern states, and every state voted to secede. These ordinances and the vote are freely available online.
After the Civil War, in Texas v… White, the supreme court cited the the Articles of Confederation to prove that the states had not really seceded, because it was impossible under law to do so. He actually said that the Constitution prohibited it. This has since been called “bad law” by other modern justices. Furthermore, the case was, I believe, a contracts case, and the point of law establishing the inability to legally secede was cited as a done deal, while in fact the concept had never been challenged in court.
All talk of secession in the first hundred years or so of the Union have been based in one way or another on maltreatment of some states, and favoratism toward other states, on the part of the central government.
Those of us who are active in the secession movement have looked in depth at the question of legality, and we
have no doubts that it would not be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, or the United States Code. We have especially looked at the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution, and Title 18 of the United States Code which covers criminal activity.
We know that it is NOT treason to speak of secession, and the first amendment has often been cited.
We know that it is in violation of federal law to use violence or force in any way.
We know that the oaths many of us took to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” or to uphold the laws of the United States will not be violated, since neither the Constitution nor the United States Code speaks of secession.
Many of us have promised to accept the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States, and there is no reason to believe that secession would change that.
We all have our reasons for wanting secession. In NH we are attempting to procede peacably.
What we need is an understanding by the government of NH and the people in general of what might happen if secession succeeds.
Thus, the reason why this committee should be enabled.
We need to communicate this information to ALL the citizens of NH.
But… if this committee reflects only the preconceived ideas and philosophical outlooks of the present it will have all been in vain.
We need to have openness, with the people, and of the mind. We need to have a realistic attitude about what CAN work in a post-secession world of the near-future, not based on the current level of readiness, but on the desires of the populous and resources that we can reasonably expect to muster in the next few years given the will to do it.
Without a REALISTIC appraisal of the question of secession, and a REALISTIC expectation for the future,
we can succeed in improving the lives of ALL of the people of NH.
I do not expect this study committee to actually implement any changes. But we need to have a basis for future actions. Another group of people, comoposed of scientists, technicians, and systems analysts will need to be assembled for that task.
If this committee is not approved, it is likely, I think, that a hit-and-miss approach will produce something based entirely on the prejudices of individuals, in competition with each other, and we will likely be less well-off rather than more.
I must therefore ask you to vote this committee into existence, and encourage consultation of each of the specialists with others of their own special field of expertise.
David E. Sanders
Manchester
- Log in to post comments