HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

On the 12th of February 2009, certain ‘Representatives’ of ours, sitting in committee in Concord, had the opportunity to participate in making a statement on the  importance of our Constitution and willfully chose not to.

Their vote, showing their disfavor with HCR 6 (full text below), is equivalent to telling us that the 4th of July, celebrating the founding of our nation as a land governed by the rule of Law, need be paid no heed. In spite of overwhelming public support for this Resolution these ‘Representatives’ (of the People?) decided to pay ZERO attention to your wishes and deny their Oath of office (“bearing true faith and allegiance to the United States, to the State of New Hampshire and to support the Constitution and laws thereof”) by consigning this Resolution to the dustbin.

The ‘Representatives’ who voted to ‘disappear’ this statement of support of our Constitutions were Chairman Michael Rollo, Thomas Katsiantonis, George Katsiantonis, Alexis Chininis, Sarah Hutz, Baldwin Domingo, Patrick Garrity, Cynthia Sweeney, Valerie Hardy and Robert Haley. You’ll notice I haven’t articulated the political parties these people claim allegiance to because this issue, this statement, was NOT partisan, this had nothing to do with the ideology of Republicans or Democrats but with supporting the very foundation of our Republic and in this regard, these people proved themselves lacking.

As said above, given the opportunity to restate the founding principles of our Constitution these people willfully placed this resolution into the dustbin. Given the opportunity to remind the Federal government of the limitations placed upon it by our founding Law, these people chose, by their actions, to give the Federal government free rein, essentially giving New Hampshire’s permission to further extend the dictatorial reach of the federal government, outside its legal authority without regard to your will, your interests or our Laws.

The Resolution reminded the Federal government that it was created/founded by the States & the People therein, having limited power and scope. It stated that were the government to act outside its legal bounds (established by our Constitution) that it legitimacy would be in question. It stated acts carried out by the Federal government that were beyond its legal scope would effectively nullify its authority and were these to take place that New Hampshire would act to protect its Citizens pursuant to our State’s Constitution. To anyone who’s studied our nation or government or has the remotest understanding of Constitutional governance this Resolution wasn’t saying anything that wouldn’t be obvious. As for those who voted against it, so much for stating the obvious...

To attempt to make a point, I often quote U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The reason for this is that these decisions are (in addition to our Constitution) the highest Law of the land and, one would think, might be paid attention to by our Representatives’ and government officials. With regard to the thwarting of this Resolution, articulating the legal limits of Federal power, which was voted against by these ‘Representatives’, I note the court’s position in New York v. United States 505 US 144 at 182 wherein Justice O’Conner states:Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment.” Thus: State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, the facts of this case raise the possibility that powerful incentives might lead both federal and state officials to view departures from the federal structure to be in their personal interests.

So, in spite of these people doing their level best NOT to acknowledge the Federal encroachment of authority beyond the legal limits placed upon it by our Constitution, our State and our People, the aforementioned decision shows (even them) that it matters not if state officials agree with the illegal seizure of unauthorized power, the power assumed and the agreement by state officials to accept it, is NOT LEGAL. So, while certain people, at the state level, may believe the Feds should be given a free hand to ‘act’ as they see fit, the Court (in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936) reminds them that: The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have, but what powers in fact have been given by the people.

I want to thank Representative Daniel Itse and his colleagues Tim Comerford, Paul Ingbretson & Senator William Denley, who sponsored the Resolution as well as Kris Roberts, James Twombly, Lars Christiansen, Dennis Fields, Frank Emiro, Todd Smith, Alfred Baldasaro voted to pass this Resolution. These gentlemen demonstrated a true understanding of the legal underpinnings of our Republic, a loyalty to the rule of Law and an allegiance to the Citizens of New Hampshire. Thank you for thinking and ‘acting’ on behalf of New Hampshire and all Americans.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

 

RC

 

Governor

Christopher T. Sununu

District 1

Joseph D Kenney

District 2

Andru Volinsky

District 3

Russell E Prescott

District 4

Christopher C. Pappas

District 5

David K. Wheeler

Click on the above photos to read about each of our council members.

 

Home Q & A Rules Q  & A Answers RC's Column