The NH House calendar for the next week has been published by the legislature, and the next group of bills to be considered by the full House includes CACR32. The primary session day is Thursday, March 10th. Bills that cannot be voted on during that session will be addressed during the sessions on March 15-17th. The legislation had a public hearing in the State-Federal Relations Committee on January 20th. At the hearing, pro-independence citizens filled the room and told the Representatives about the dozens of reasons we should be allowed to vote on independence. Only one citizen spoke against the legislation, and his most substantive argument was that we can’t split up the union because we are all Americans who just need to ‘come together’.
CACR32 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare independence from the union so that New Hampshire would no longer be ruled by DC politicians. In order to become part of the NH Constitution,, CACR32 would need to pass the House with 60% of the vote, pass the Senate with 60% of the vote, and then be placed on the November ballot for the people to vote on, at which time it would need two-thirds of the people supporting it in order to pass. Many legislators are afraid that if the question is allowed to be on the ballot, 67% of the people of New Hampshire would vote to divorce DC politicians, so they are desperately doing everything they can to kill the legislation in the House.
The face of the anti-independence (pro-DC) and anti-choice movement is Brodie Deshaies, a young moderate Republican who comes across as a professional politician, though not as bright and even less courageous. He wrote a frantic letter months ago urging his committee to recommend that the full House kill the legislation. He does not want to allow his constituents to vote, because he believes that they are too stupid to be trusted to vote on an important issue such as independence. Combined with threats of legislators being labeled ‘rebels’ and ‘insurrectionists’, Deshaies’ effort achieved its goal, and all 21 members of the House State-Federal Relations Committee recommended that the House vote down the legislation and prevent the people from voting.
This writer responded to Deshaies’ letter with a refutation of his arguments as well as a cordial invitation to debate with me publicly. Deshaies refused to debate me or anyone on the issue of secession, despite acting like the most macho, brilliant human to ever grace this Earth whenever he is in Concord. In the official recommendation from the committee to the full House, Deshaies writes the same terrible arguments against the legislation. He claims to revere the Constitution to a tee, yet he acts as if he believes that the federal government’s countless violations of the Constitution (1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, 10th amendment, etc.) are totally fine. Deshaies and other anti-independence politicians seem to believe that DC politicians can violate natural rights that are clearly protected by the Constitution, but we better not even consider letting people vote on independence from our abusive masters in DC, because doing so would violate some non-existent constitutional provision.
Though the reader is referred to our letter in response, we feel obligated to point out that in light of the recent global events, it would seem to follow from Deshaies’ arguments that if Putin is successful in reuniting Ukraine with Russia (which per Putin has had no independent right to exist), his military devastation of Ukraine would make that fact into law.
Many legislators and many, if not most pro-freedom activists agree that Deshaies does not believe in freedom and likely sees himself as POTUS one day. There is a fair amount of debate among Republicans and libertarians about his intelligence, though. Some believe that he is mentally inept, as evidenced by his interpretation of the 10th amendment (he has asserted that the amendment means that all powers not addressed by the Constitution are de facto federal powers and all freedoms not addressed are de facto prohibited). Others argue that he is a cunning and ruthless politician, which is what allowed him to convince the entire committee to recommend killing CACR32 despite at least two of the members saying days earlier that they support the bill.
Among the many reasons that all legislators should support this simple legislation are allowing the people to vote on their own futures, and forcing the anti-independence tyrants to come to the table for a public debate. Until they can defend their positions in a real debate, all Representatives should move the legislation forward so that the people can vote on whether to divorce DC politicians or whether to continue being increasingly abused .
Below is the blurb written by Deshaies on behalf of the committee, recommending that the full House support their ITL motion and kill the legislation, silencing the people of New Hampshire.
“CACR 32, relating to independence. Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Brodie Deshaies for State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs. The committee believes that articles of secession are unconstitutional and therefore impossible. Any attempt to make NH a “sovereign nation” only purports to do so and is illegitimate. There are three main arguments the committee heard. The first legal argument why states cannot secede from the union is reasonably understandable. The federal government is the only legitimate power to admit new states and to extend or retract territorial boundaries. Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede, let alone for any state to decide unilaterally. Our constitution is quite clear on this issue (see Article IV, Section 3). No state constitution has ever suggested that states hold this power. Constitutions are implicit contracts with citizens that grant governments specific powers. With no power explicitly given allowing secession, no state can ever secede. Another argument lies in the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White (1869). In the court’s majority decision, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase explained that the union began during the Revolutionary War amongst the colonies. In his decision, he writes, the union “was confirmed and strengthened… and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation… [and] by these, the Union was solemnly declared to be perpetual.” Justice Chase then says that our current Constitution was “ordained to form a more perfect Union,” which intended to convey the idea of indissoluble unity….” Therefore, the union can never be dissolved. Our form of government and Constitution is predicated upon the union’s “perpetual” existence. Without this “perpetual” existence, we would be throwing away the union, and with it, the US Constitution. The last constitutional argument is straightforward. It does not matter whether or not secession is illegal. What matters is that the union beat the confederacy in the Civil War. Once this happened, the illegality of unilateral secession was de facto established. The legality of secession was answered at Appomattox Court House in 1865 with the conclusion of the Civil War. It also means the repercussions for attempting unilateral secession have been decided too. The federal government must punish states and their leaders who try to secede. Which leads us to another question: can state leaders introduce or vote for articles of secession? This is currently an open question and the NH General Court would decide the answer. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment, Article III, is very clear: “No State Legislator shall engage in rebellion against the Constitution.” Voting for NH’s proposed articles of secession could be determined by the NH House as rebellion against the US Constitution. It could be casting a vote to rebel against the union and, therefore, the same constitution establishing the perpetual union. Voting for CACR32 is not voting for a referendum. NH does not have referendum. We encourage fellow lawmakers to reject NH’s articles of secession and protect constitutional government. Not only is CACR32 logistically and constitutionally impossible, but NH’s articles of secession may require enforcement of the 14th Amendment by the NH House. Vote 21-0.”