View Full Version : New Hampshire Challenges Federal Gov't on 2nd Amend.
variablebinary
02-05-09, 02:22
It's only a matter of time...You push enough, and expect push back...
NEW HAMPSHIRE THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
February 3, 2009
Here is a copy of House Resolution 6 being discussed by the New Hampshire Legislature.
It certainly sets some limitations on the Presidency and the Congress.
New Hampshire HCR 6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles...
...That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...
Live Free or Die Bitches!
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 06:44
quote]Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...[/quote]
This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.
FWIW, I think this resolutoin goes absolutely NOWHERE.
Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...
This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.
FWIW, I think this resolutoin goes absolutely NOWHERE.
They get to decide whether or not THEIR contract with the federal government is negated. I.e. secession.
quote]Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...
This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.
FWIW, I think this resolutoin goes absolutely NOWHERE.[/QUOTE]
It's still cool that stuff like this is being brought up.
Yeah, going nowhere, but still..... I love my state. :)
For the most part, anyway. All those damn MA terraformers moving up here because their state is in the crapper, and then voting the same way they did in MA. Jerks. :mad:
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 08:32
They get to decide whether or not THEIR contract with the federal government is negated. I.e. secession.
First, that's not what the resolution says.
Second, no they don't. I refer you to the precendent set by Sherman V. Georgia.
I stand with my brothers in NH in principle and support their cause.
I will be sending a letter expressing my support to the NH House and to the Governor today.
Live Free or Die indeed.
Buckaroo
thopkins22
02-05-09, 08:45
First, that's not what the resolution says.
Second, no they don't. I refer you to the precendent set by Sherman V. Georgia.
If they're reaffirming Jeffersonian principles, then it certainly is what they're saying.
Is it irrelevant? Yes probably, because as you pointed out, if they try and act on it the US will burn their state to the ground, and kill their citizens relentlessly. But it's impressive to me that they're taking a stand for liberty in these times where the constitution is regularly ignored.
How could it be a more meaningful statement?
How many co-sponsors , in the House and also how many for any counterpart bill in the Senate.
Out of how many members?
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 09:28
If they're reaffirming Jeffersonian principles, then it certainly is what they're saying.
Is it irrelevant? Yes probably, because as you pointed out, if they try and act on it the US will burn their state to the ground, and kill their citizens relentlessly. But it's impressive to me that they're taking a stand for liberty in these times where the constitution is regularly ignored.
How could it be a more meaningful statement?
Read the resolution.
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.
Basically, they said that if the Federal government does what they determine to be a violation of the Constitution, then the Constitution is bascially dissolved and the powers revert to the SEVERAL states. Utter bullshit. One teeny tiny state doesn't get to to decide that. They don't even get to decide whether something is Constitutional or not. That's what SCOTUS is for.
It would be more meaningful if it actually has a chance of making it out of committee and maybe even being adopted.
Instead, it's a badly written fruit loop resolution
This kind of nonsense makes makes gun rights advocates look like anti-ebil guvmint crackpots.
variablebinary
02-05-09, 09:31
If they're reaffirming Jeffersonian principles, then it certainly is what they're saying.
Is it irrelevant? Yes probably, because as you pointed out, if they try and act on it the US will burn their state to the ground, and kill their citizens relentlessly
I think the feds would make life hard for NH, but the odds of federal troops marching to war drums is slim. Doing that would cause rebellion throughout the union and would probably turn into all out civil war.
I am also willing to wager there is more anti federal mindsets than pro federal in all nearly all 50 states. They are just looking for a reason to kick up dust
Yeah, going nowhere, but still..... I love my state. :)
For the most part, anyway. All those damn MA terraformers moving up here because their state is in the crapper, and then voting the same way they did in MA. Jerks. :mad:
When I lived in NH we called them "Massholes"
This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.
I'd say its meaning and power depends entirely on how far NH is willing to go to back it up. This country is not that old and we've fought at least one massive and bloody civil war already over similar (and arguably less significant) issues.
I also agree that the Masshole contingent will keep this from ever being enacted or, if enacted, enforced in any meaningful way.
Sttrongbow
02-05-09, 13:41
I'd say its meaning and power depends entirely on how far NH is willing to go to back it up. This country is not that old and we've fought at least one massive and bloody civil war already over similar (and arguably less significant) issues.
I also agree that the Masshole contingent will keep this from ever being enacted or, if enacted, enforced in any meaningful way.
No... my point is that as written it is a poor resolution at best, an incredibly obtuse one at worst. It's one thing for a resolution to declare what NH would do. It's another to declare the fate of the nation.
Jeffersonian states rights haven't existed since 1861. And if you want to blame anyone for it, blame SC. If they hadn't attacked Fort Sumpter, the course of the matter might have gone very differently indeed.
But that's water under the bridge. the dominion of the Federal government is now long established. Heck, each American here has pledged many times that we are a nation "indivisible." You wanna make a difference? Then fight for rights on a national level. And divorce liberty from social conservatism. The two make poor bedfellows anyway. Heck where I live, even liberals are gun owners!
Jeffersonian states rights haven't existed since 1861. And if you want to blame anyone for it, blame SC. If they hadn't attacked Fort Sumpter, the course of the matter might have gone very differently indeed.
Unfortunately you are correct. Who knows what might have occurred but for that act of aggression.
Buckaroo
Ahhh yes NH.we should bild a wall at the MA NH line!!!!!
L.F.O.D.
Live Free Or Die.
Ahhh yes NH.we should bild a wall at the MA NH line!!!!!
I'd agree, but I work in MA. How about a day pass?
Wouldn't Federal restrictions on the 2A violate some state constitutions.
Why do you think states have constitutions in the first place, and why the vast majority recognize and protect a right to keep and bear arms. ;)
-B
SecretAgentMan
02-06-09, 16:21
Jeffersonian states rights haven't existed since 1861. And if you want to blame anyone for it, blame SC. If they hadn't attacked Fort Sumpter, the course of the matter might have gone very differently indeed.
That's a strange thing to say, considering that the Jeffersonian rights of states is exactly why South Carolina attacked Fort Sumpter. The fact that Americans today (myself included) have a moral problem with slavery does not change the fact that the Constitution did guarantee the extradition of escaped slaves back to their state of origin. So why should South Carolina be blamed for taking offense at the usurpation of their rights under the Constitution?
Furthermore, just as we can ask what would have happened if South Carolina had not attacked Fort Sumter, we can also ask what would have happened if Major Robert Anderson had not gone against orders and secretly moved his men from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter without the knowledge of his superiors in Washington. Rather than delaying a Rebel attack -- which was ostensibly his goal -- he provoked it by moving to stronger fortifications. Even then, the government of South Carolina gave Washington several months to evacuate Fort Sumter before the attack, but President Lincoln refused to remove the troops because he did not respect South Carolina's right to secede. It's also possible that he was daring South Carolina to make a move.
Blaming South Carolina for the loss of state's rights is like blaming the U.S. Marine Corps for Vietnam being communist.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.