podcast episode
http://podcast.nhexit.org/index.php?name=2023-12-18-nhexit.dec.18th.2023...
---------------------
Constitution for the state of New Hampshire. Printed by Zechariah Fowle. Evans 16386. Signed by John Langdon as President pro tempore of the New Hampshire Legislature, and E. Thompson as Secretary. The convention met on June 5, 1779.
Background Information
The United States was the first modern nation to self-consciously design systems of government reflecting certain fundamental philosophical principles. After the country declared independence in 1776, many states drew up new constitutions that embodied republican ideals.
A basic goal of the new state constitutions was to curb the kinds of abuses that provoked the Revolution. The British had lacked a written constitution; many Americans felt that a written constitution would be harder to violate. To keep state governments from abusing their power, the state constitutions included a bill of rights, which guaranteed certain elemental rights that government could not infringe, such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to trial by jury.
The new state constitutions also curbed executive power. Two states--Georgia and Pennsylvania--eliminated the position of governor altogether. The other states prohibited governors from vetoing laws, dissolving the state legislature, and granting land, and sharply limited their power to appoint government officials.
The new state constitutions gave the legislature the most governmental power precisely because legislative assemblies had actively resisted attempts by royal governors and the king's ministers to violate their rights. But because they feared giving too much power to any one governmental body, all the states except Georgia and Pennsylvania divided the state legislature into two branches.
As a symbol that the new state constitutions reflected the sovereignty of the people, the documents were typically drafted by special constitutional conventions rather than by state legislatures. The constitutions were then submitted to the people for approval.
Full Transcript
A DECLARATION
of Rights, and Plans of Government for the State of
New-Hampshire.
WHEREAS by the tyrannical Administration of the Government of the King and Parliament of Great-Britain, this State of New-Hampshire, with the other United-States of AMERICA, have been necessitated to reject the British Government, and declare themselves INDEPENDENT STATES; all which is more largely set forth by the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, in their Resolution or Declaration of the fourth of July A.D. 1776.
AND WHEREAS, it is recommended by the said CONTINENTAL CONGRESS to each and every of the said United-States to establish a FORM OF GOVERNMENT most conducive to the Welfare thereof. We the DELEGATES of the said State of NEW HAMPSHIRE chosen for the Purpose of forming a permanent PLAN of GOVERNMENT subject to the Revisal of our CONSTITUENTS, have composed the following DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, and PLAN of GOVERNMENT, and recommend the same to our CONSTITUENTS for their Approbation.
A Declaration of the RIGHTS of the People of the
State of New-Hampshire.
First, WE declare, that we the People of the State of New-Hampshire are Free and Independent of the Crown of Great-Britain.
Secondly. We the People of this State, are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property; and all other Immunities and Privileges which we heretofore enjoyed.
Thirdly. The Common and Statute Laws of England, adopted and used here, and the Laws of this State (not inconsistent with said Declaration of INDEPENDENCE) now are, and shall be in force here, for the Welfare and good Government of the State, unless the same shall be repealed or altered by the future Legislature thereof.
Fourthly. The whole and entire Power of Government of this State, is vested in, and must be derived from the People thereof, and from no other Source whatsoever.
Fifthly. The future Legislature of this State, shall make no Laws to infringe the Rights of Conscience, or any other of the natural, unalienable Rights of Men, or contrary to the Laws of GOD, or against the Protestant Religion.
Sixthly. The Extent of Territory of this State, is, and shall be the same which was under the Government of the late Governor John Wentworth, Esq.; Governor of New-Hampshire. Reserving nevertheless, our claim to the New-Hampshire Grants, so called situate to the West of the Connecticut River [Vermont].
Seventhly. The Right of Trial by Jury in all Cases as heretofore used in this State, shall be preserved inviolate forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langdon_(politician)
—----------
Daniel Miller, founder and president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, joins Bob to discuss the exciting developments in the push for a referendum on Texas secession. Daniel explains the prospects and then answers common objections to the idea.
https://mises.org/library/will-texit-be-gop-primary-ballot-2024
—---------
Podcast about Texit and Nullification:
https://mises.org/library/texit-gold-and-ideas-states-2024
—-------------
On the first day of chaos, @NHGOP gave to me… a bill to Secede from the United States!
https://twitter.com/NHHouseDems/status/1735042896334569711
—------------
LTE Union Leader-
NHexit: Legislation would let the people vote on independence
At the imperial level next year, you will have a slate of arguably dodgy presidential candidates to pick from. But at the state level you will have a much more meaningful opportunity to counter D.C. abuses.
New Hampshire has Rep. Jason Gerhard's CACR20. If passed, this legislation would trigger what is essentially a Brexit-style referendum on *independence* from the U.S. government. All New Hampshire voters would be able to decide whether we want to continue participating in Washington's inflation, its unconstitutional SWAT raids on NH Bitcoin businesses and its TORTURE CHAMBERS.
Passage of this desperate legislation is a hyper-longshot - for now. The establishment gatekeepers at Concord will try to keep you from being able to vote on this. But as the Scottish and Quebecois secession drives have proven...you don't have to completely achieve independence to have a positive effect on a central government. Just moving in that direction is a peaceable deterrent which tends to increase local control.
The hearing for Gerhard's legislation will likely occur between January and March at the state house complex. Visit Forum.ShireSociety.com to find out more as we get closer.
Dave Ridley
Winchester
—------------
Yet another reason to #NHexit the US: The CIA
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/22/the-cia-70-years-of-organized-cr...
—-----------
Leif_Alexander
Now I have to wonder… what would happen if a state passed a law saying, in short “The federal government shall have no legal jurisdiction in the state of New Hampshire”.
This would essentially nullify all federal laws, but would still permit the state to have exactly the same laws in force if it so desired.
One example that might make a real difference… the oaths that public officials in New Hampshire take. The Constitutional requirement that public officials take an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States would essentially be the United States commandeering public officials to act as agents for the federal government.
This is a prime example of federal government over-reach.
—---------
We have to be free from the medical tyranny:
DiaryofCovid.com
https://tomwoods.com/ep-2429-scott-horton-and-tom-on-the-crime-of-the-ce...
—-----------------
Who will build the roads?
This is how many roads were built in NH from 1796-1830.
https://www.cowhampshireblog.com/2006/08/23/new-hampshires-turnpike-hist...
—-----------
CONCORD, N.H. (Dec. 12, 2023) – A bill filed in the New Hampshire House would end all state and local cooperation with the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Rep. Michael Granger along with seven cosponsors filed House Bill 1156 (HB1156) for introduction on Jan. 3, 2024. Under the proposed law, the CDC and WHO would have “no jurisdiction” in New Hampshire.
HB1156 would further prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from engaging in the enforcement of, or collaborating with the enforcement of, “any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions, or guidance provided by either organization.”
The legislation specifically states that “any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions, or guidance by either organization shall not be used in this state to justify any mask, vaccine or medical testing requirements and shall have no force or effect in New Hampshire.”
The passage of HB1156 would effectively stop the enforcement of CDC or WHO mandates in New Hampshire by ending all state and local cooperation.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “States are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rest on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.
HB1156 will be officially introduced when the New Hampshire legislature convenes on Jan. 3. It will be referred to the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee where it must get a hearing and a vote. An “ought to pass” recommendation would greatly increase the bill’s chances of passing the full House.
—-------------
New Hampshire's Internet Ranking
New Hampshire currently ranks 2nd among states in BroadbandNow’s annual rankings of internet coverage, speed and availability.
https://broadbandnow.com/New-Hampshire
—------------
Homeschooling requirements from the State (Future Country) of New Hampshire:
https://granitestatehomeeducators.org/testing-evaluations/?fbclid=IwAR2Z...
- Log in to post comments