Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19  (Read 4113 times)

freedomroad

  • Guest
Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« on: February 21, 2011, 08:00:46 pm »

Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19

It's true, the FSP Liberty Forum was canceled this year.  However, there is another event with speakers that would all feel right at home at the Liberty Forum that is happening in NH this year and it is the Nullify Now! New Hampshire Conference.  The event is from 10 AM until 6 PM on March 19 in Manchester and tickets start at only $10.  There are lots of big name speakers for the low, low price of only $10.  Lots and lots of FSPers have RSVPed to this event!

Speakers include:
Learn more about the speakers, http://www.nullifynow.com/newhampshire/
Thomas E. Woods
NH Rep Dan Itse
Jim Babka of Downsize DC
Catherine Bleish of Liberty Restoration Project
Jack Kimball, Tea Party favorite and head of the NH GOP
Bernie Quigley, blogger for The Hill
John Bush of Foundation for a Free Society
Michael Boldin, director of the Tenth Amendment Center
Bryce Shonka, deputy director of the Tenth Amendment Center
Speaker William L. O’Brien, Tea Party favorite and Speaker of the NH House of Reps
Mark Edge, co-host of Free Talk Live is the Master of Ceremonies

Buy your ticket, http://www.nullifynow.com/newhampshire/
Facebook event, http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/event.php?eid=131069230289364
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:03:41 pm by Freedomroad »
Logged

Denis Goddard

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • Free State Blogs
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2011, 10:05:08 am »

Real nullification action is going on every week in the NH state legislature.

This passed the NH House last week:
http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB125

Another announcement likely in 3... 2...

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2011, 11:39:02 am »

HCR 19 affirming state's rights and declaring that un-delegated powers usurped by the Federal Government are null and void PASSED THE HOUSE YESTERDAY!!

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HCR19
Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

Denis Goddard

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • Free State Blogs
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2011, 11:45:38 am »

It's a nullification resolution :)

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HCR19
Quote
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 19

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ powers based on the Constitution for the United States and the Constitution of New Hampshire.

Whereas, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas, each State acceded to the compact titled The Constitution for the United States of America as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: and

Whereas, the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas, the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas, these recommended changes were incorporated as the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”, and the Tenth Amendment, “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.”, to the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States of America, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, all remaining powers for their own self-government; and

Whereas, the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution:

I. Therefore, words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument; and

II. Therefore, whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever:

----8<------ (cont'd)

Denis Goddard

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • Free State Blogs
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2011, 11:45:57 am »

----8<-----


Quote
Therefore, all acts of Congress, the orders of the Executive or orders of the Judiciary of the United States of America which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States:

Therefore, all compulsory federal legislation that directs States to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires States to pass legislation or lose federal funding are prohibited; and

Whereas, The Constitution for the United States of America, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 gives Congress the authority to authorize inferior officers of the government of the United States of America not enumerated in the Constitution by law and for them to be appointed by the manner prescribed by law enacted by the Congress, and that the Constitution gives no such authority to the President:

Therefore, no officer not authorized by the Constitution or by law or exercising a power not authorized by the Constitution, nor their subordinates shall have any authority in, or over the sovereign State of New Hampshire, nor any inhabitant or resident thereof, nor any franchises created under the authority thereof when within the borders of the State of New Hampshire, and

Whereas, the Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section 1 delegates all legislative power to the Congress, and

Whereas, the Constitution for the United States of America Article II delegates no legislative power to the Executive branch whatsoever. Therefore, any Executive Order that pretends the power to create statutes controlling the States, their inhabitants or their residents is unauthoritive, void and of no force, and

Whereas, the Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Section 2 declares “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”; and

Whereas, treaties are ratified by the Senate which being a House of Congress has its jurisdiction limited to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; and

Whereas, treaties are ratified by the President and the Senate (representing the States) only, but laws are ratified by the House of Representatives (representing the people) and the Senate (representing the States) and the President, no treaty can be lawfully construed to restrict or amend existing law; and

Whereas, treaties are ratified by the President and the Senate (representing the States) only, but the Constitution and its amendments were ratified by the States directly (representing the people), no treaty can be lawfully construed to restrict or amend the Constitution:

Therefore, any treaty which pretends to delegate any powers not delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is altogether void, and of no force; and any order of the Executive or order of the Judiciary which is construed to restrict or amend existing law, or any act of Congress, order of the Executive or order of the Judiciary which is construed to restrict or amend the Constitution for the United States of America based upon compliance with any treaty are altogether void, and of no force; and

Whereas, the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress:

Therefore, the Legislatures and Legislators of the several States have the right and duty to consider the constitutionality of any legislative act or order promulgated by the government of the United States of America; and to protect their governments, inhabitants, and residents and instruments created under their authority by prohibiting, and if necessary punishing the enforcement any Acts by the Congress of the United States of America, 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

Whereas, the Constitution for the United States of America guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature (of a State), or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Therefore; there exists a class of Acts by the Congress of the United States, Executive Orders of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Orders by the Judicatories of the United States of America that constitutes a direct challenge to the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States including, but not limited to:

I. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

II. 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 or authority derived from that body.

III. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any incorporation or foreign government; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the State of New Hampshire urges its co-States to charge to one if its committees with the duty communicating the preceedings of its Legislature in regard to the government of the United States of America to the corresponding committees of Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s Legislature.

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2011, 02:53:57 pm »

Completely worthless.
Most federal funding is extra-constitutional.

Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2011, 03:39:53 pm »

Completely worthless.
Most federal funding is extra-constitutional.



Are u a statist, Mr. Mercier?
Logged

Denis Goddard

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • Free State Blogs
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2011, 08:29:42 pm »

Completely worthless.
Most federal funding is extra-constitutional.



Are u a statist, Mr. Mercier?
No, he's a libertarian debater ;)

eh?

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Just living is not enough.
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2011, 09:35:12 pm »

Real nullification action is going on every week in the NH state legislature.

Thankyou for posting the link to the bill.

I read the bill, and thought about it, because I honestly, genuinely and desperately want to believe that there might somewhere be some hope, however slight, for liberty.

After the reading, and the thinking, the cynic in me wants to know: of what use it is to a slave to exchange a distant master for one which is closer?

Try as I might, I couldn't satisfy my inner cynic by pointing out that, in present practice, the exactions of the new nearby master would be significantly and refreshingly less onerous and oppressive than those formerly imposed.

What I wanted to see was something suggesting progress towards a greater degree of sovereignty for the individual.  Not, that is, that my new master would kindly forbear from requiring or forbidding certain of my habits but that he would be prohibited from doing so.

Was it there and did I miss it?
Logged
To advocate compulsory taxation (there is no other kind) is to advocate aggressive violence.
Rare indeed seem those who would rather the lash were banished utterly from human interaction save in defense of self and property
than the haft thereof find on convenient occasion its lawful place nestled comfortably in their own grasp.

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2011, 10:42:30 pm »

Real nullification action is going on every week in the NH state legislature.

Thankyou for posting the link to the bill.

I read the bill, and thought about it, because I honestly, genuinely and desperately want to believe that there might somewhere be some hope, however slight, for liberty.

After the reading, and the thinking, the cynic in me wants to know: of what use it is to a slave to exchange a distant master for one which is closer?

Try as I might, I couldn't satisfy my inner cynic by pointing out that, in present practice, the exactions of the new nearby master would be significantly and refreshingly less onerous and oppressive than those formerly imposed.

What I wanted to see was something suggesting progress towards a greater degree of sovereignty for the individual.  Not, that is, that my new master would kindly forbear from requiring or forbidding certain of my habits but that he would be prohibited from doing so.

Was it there and did I miss it?

... huh?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2011, 11:12:34 pm »

Completely worthless.
Most federal funding is extra-constitutional.



Are u a statist, Mr. Mercier?
What are you talking about? Can you even read English? Have any clue what the resolution states?

And its not a debate. The only authority that NH has on the matter is simply not to accept the money... but somehow that seems beyond the scope of reason to legislators.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2011, 11:30:17 pm »

What I wanted to see was something suggesting progress towards a greater degree of sovereignty for the individual.  Not, that is, that my new master would kindly forbear from requiring or forbidding certain of my habits but that he would be prohibited from doing so.

This is just a guess and I could be wrong, but I don't think you live in NH.  In the vast majority of the towns in NH the voters get to decide the budget by voting.  So while an individual isn't sovereign, he certainly have more power than anywhere else in the US.  Of course, that is just the starting point.  The more power taken back from the federal government the better.  The more power given to the voter, the better.

However, I could be way off as your talk of slave is highly confusing.  Maybe you are debating something else entirely?
Logged

eh?

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Just living is not enough.
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2011, 06:00:42 pm »

This is just a guess and I could be wrong, but I don't think you live in NH.

That's not right.  But it is correct.  For the moment.   In the concrete.  But not in the abstract.

Quote
... an individual isn't sovereign ...
Quote
...  The more power given to the voter, the better. ...

I acknowledge that the above two quotes from your remarks are highly selective, omit important context, and likely distort considerably what you were trying to say.  I picked them because they highlight part of what I was trying to say.

Firstly, the individual is no more sovereign in the event the bill becomes law than he was prior.  True in the present instance, his situation has, deceptively and dangerously, become much more comfortable.  I applaud and appreciate that augmented comfort and privilege.  Although highly unlikely, it may also be that it could be an enduring and important first step.  However, notwithstanding that there may have been a change of masters, the individual has no more liberty afterwards than before.

Secondly, to talk of "...giving power to the voter..." in the context of individual liberty is astounding.

Quote
However, I could be way off as your talk of slave is highly confusing.

Sorry.  My bad.   I confess that these things are not always entirely crystal clear to me in my own mind.

Quote
Maybe you are debating something else entirely?

I wasn't really trying to debate anything.

Just sharing, for whatever interest or worth anyone else might find in it, an observation that there are very few, if any, instances in human history of which I am aware where, upon dismissing a tyrant, people have done anything other than immediately fill the authority vacuum by installing a new tyrant.

I saw nothing in the Nullification Bill that struck me as going in any different direction.
Logged
To advocate compulsory taxation (there is no other kind) is to advocate aggressive violence.
Rare indeed seem those who would rather the lash were banished utterly from human interaction save in defense of self and property
than the haft thereof find on convenient occasion its lawful place nestled comfortably in their own grasp.

Jeff LaGrange

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
  • AKA (1) poorkollegekid (2) Axon Hillock
    • Facebook
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2011, 12:30:59 pm »

Real nullification action is going on every week in the NH state legislature.

This passed the NH House last week:
http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB125

Another announcement likely in 3... 2...

I just bought a SigSauer and live in NY (supporting the Exeter, NH economy). I wonder if a handgun mfg in NH, shipped to NY for sale and then brought back to NH with me when I move there permanantly would be covered by this law?  Thoughts?
Logged
"No nation however powerful, any more than an individual, can be unjust with impunity.  Sooner or later, public opinion, an instrument merely moral in the beginning, will find occasion physically to inflict its sentences on the unjust... The lesson is useful to the weak as well as the strong." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1804.

"It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour." -  Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson

Dreepa

  • First 1000
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Nullify Now! New Hampshire March 19
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2011, 08:03:45 pm »

Real nullification action is going on every week in the NH state legislature.

This passed the NH House last week:
http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB125

Another announcement likely in 3... 2...

I just bought a SigSauer and live in NY (supporting the Exeter, NH economy). I wonder if a handgun mfg in NH, shipped to NY for sale and then brought back to NH with me when I move there permanantly would be covered by this law?  Thoughts?

I would think that once it crosses the state line it is no longer 'covered'
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up