Landrigan: HB436 Dead, Thanks to DeVries & Reynolds

I believe DeVries represents Ward 5-9 of Manchester (0.00 / 0)

Which would be Hillsborough-12 through -16.

There are 6 state reps in her district who voted FOR.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:19:24 AM UTC

Ask her why (0.00 / 0)

Sen. Betsi DeVries, D-Manchester, has told associates she, too, can't go along with it [HB436] right now.

Landrigan should not have let her give that answer without a reason. Maybe one of her constituents can ask.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:52:11 AM UTC

Ask her why she's corrupt. (0.00 / 0)

Since the Constitution demands that public officials deliver public services equally, inequality or unequal service is evidence of favoritism and, ipso facto, corrupt.

Corruption, by the way, need not be evidenced by favoritism to another or the acceptance of bribes.  It can also be evidenced by self-dealing.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:19:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, the issue should not be addressed in terms of (0.00 / 0)

whom it affects--who's being deprived.  It should be addressed in terms of who's promoting favoritism in the deliver of government services--who's doing (or not doing) rather than who's being done to.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:23:52 PM UTC

What gets me in addition (4.00 / 1)

to voting "no" on this is the "reasoning". Reynolds and DeVries (if Landrigan is accurate) are not saying the policy is wrong. They are saying "now is not the time." That is not a strong reason. It's vague. When is the right time, then? Who decides? I would like these two questions answered, at least.

Tp quote Bob Dylan from a song we sang at elementary school:

"How many years must some people exist, before they're allowed to be free?"

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:35:41 PM UTC

After a court order (4.00 / 2)

Though that was a rocky path for Massachusetts.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:40:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't forget Busing! n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 00:28:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The people decide when is the right time (0.00 / 0)

By replacing Reynolds and DeVries.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:56:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's very sound (0.00 / 0)

Clearly, they're expecting all the gay people in New Hampshire to have themselves cryogenically frozen until "the right time", thereby not losing precious years of their lives between now and when people who are totally irrelevant to their lives are "ready" to allow their fellow citizens to be truly free.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 17:31:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frozen Until The Right Time... (0.00 / 0)

...really hits it home, TWTM.  That comment from any Senator is chilling in itself.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 19:39:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It has to be put in terms of individuals. (0.00 / 0)

"Eventually" is not good enough in the lives of mortals.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 19:41:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We Have To "Disarm" The "Politics" Argument (0.00 / 0)

We have to make it clear that Senators cannot -- just cannot -- vote against House Bill 436 because of politics.  Politics -- the "My re-election and political career is more important than your equality..." -- is no reason to vote against an issue about human rights and equality.  

IF a Senator is going to vote against HB 436, the only reasons should be because of (1), a deep and long-held religious faith reason, or; (2), because he/she just doesn't believe that we should have equality.

And the Senators should be HONEST with us and tell us which of those reasons is why they are making their vote in favor of continued discrimination.  

We should accept and respect a Senator's reason if it is based on religion or a belief.  They are all products of their faith and upbringing.  But voting "no" because of politics is just selfish -- nothing else.  

This is not an issue of putting a finger in the wind.  You do that on issues like taxes and budgets and spending, not on issues of discrimination -- otherwise we would still have separate water fountains and women wouldn't have the right to vote.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 13:15:55 PM UTC

Disagreement (0.00 / 0)

This is not an issue of putting a finger in the wind.  You do that on issues like taxes and budgets and spending.

I strongly disagree.

The only time when I think it's ever appropriate to do that is when they feel as though their reelection is in imminent jeopardy, and even then, if they have to compromise everything of their beliefs, they shouldn't be reelected anyway.

Otherwise, a legislator should be subordinate to the beliefs of their constituents, or if their constituents beliefs are not clear, their own beliefs.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 14:41:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The legislator is first subordinate to (4.00 / 1)

his or her understanding of the state Constitution.

Each member takes that oath. There is no oath to follow the will of your constituents or even to follow your conscience. But you swear to uphold the Constitution of New Hampshire.

As I read it, that means that every legislator who ducks a tough, unpopular vote - whether on equality or on school funding - expecting that the courts will fix things is violating the oath.

Some legislators will see no constitutional issue here. Those that do, must honor their oath.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 19:56:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't forget the national constitution. (0.00 / 0)

...which forbids discrimination.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 20:56:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On That Train Of Thought (4.00 / 1)

From Article 1 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent,

A legislator taking an oath to the Constitution of New Hampshire is an oath to their constituents.

If they find something that is so abhorrent that they cannot agree with them, then they should either resign or abstain from voting.

A legislator's vote is not the legislator's vote, it's the vote of all the citizens in that legislator's district. Those citizens have just entrusted that legislator to follow their wishes and advise them on what course to take.

If that's not true then calling or writing legislators is a waste of time.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 21:20:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a different point - (0.00 / 0)

I'm not talking about a legislator finding something his constituents favor "abhorrent." I'm talking about the case where s/he may well agree with the constituents - but is convinced that the Constitution forbids it.

I'd like to see some of the highway trust fund money pay for light rail construction on busy corridors. But the New Hampshire Constitution forbids that. My legislator might agree with me, that the fund shouldn't be so hamstrung. But his/her duty is first to that Constitution.

So I should expect a response: "Sorry, Elwood, I agree. But the state Constitution doesn't permit it, so I can't introduce or support such a bill."

And I think resigning - hoping for a replacement with fewer scruples - rather than defending the Constitution on that point would be wrong.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 22:15:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're At The Heart Of The Paradox Here (0.00 / 0)

Elwood,

Article 1 of the New Hampshire Constitution says that everything in it comes from the people.

If the people want to abjure their own constitution, is that constitutional?

And on that note, would the New Hampshire legislature wouldn't be able to do so, if Congress decided to vote on a piece of legislation to abolish the constitution and it passed, would that be constitutional?

Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution says that Congress holds all legislative authority, would they have the legislative authority to get rid of their current legislative authority?

Laws aren't perfect. Hell, even though it may not sound like it's what i'm talking about, people are not perfect.

So if the people are in conflict with themselves, if the laws are in conflict with themselves, I think the path to follow is intention.

When a line chef or a construction worker or an airline pilot goes to their job, do you think they spend a whole lot of time thinking about all this philosophy? No, they're there to do a job.

So, what is the job of the legislator?

I think their job exists because it would be infeasible to fit 1.3 million people into the state house and the 424 people we have there are supposed to be a pseudo-proxy for that 1.3 million.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 23:39:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

If the people want to abjure their own constitution they can do so - by amending it.

Legislative authority doesn't extend to overriding or ignoring the constitution.

I apologize for using a sports metaphor, but it works. The umpire has full and final authority to call a ball or a strike. He has no authority at all to decide that today four strikes will be allowed. Legislators are in a similar situation.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 00:15:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, Don't Apologize, Let's Define Who The Umpire Is (4.00 / 1)

Sports is often appropriate metaphor for politics, but it isn't perfect since sports is checkers compared to the chess of politics.

Sports almost always has clear winners and losers. Politics does not. In sports, when the buzzer sounds, the game is generally over. In politics, that may just be the beginning of the game.

Even that word, a "game", would be offensive to some people considering the magnitude to them of what is being discussed in the political world.

But I digress, is the umpire you discussed the legislature/executive or the courts or the people? In the end I think that may be the problem, I don't think it's clear. After all, if one rule is the exact opposite of another rule, which one does the umpire, whoever it may be, follow?

I can understand your comupunction about a mob overthrowing the constitution, but we need to find a balance between the mob and an oligarchy. What I see, in Article 1, is an attempt at building a balance between those two extremes, following the will of the people while trying to steer that will in a responsible manner.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:00:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So much for (4.00 / 1)

"the fierce urgency of now"...

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 13:17:32 PM UTC