About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
 William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

The Republic of New Hampshire?

by: Mike Emm

Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 06:41:54 AM EST
When I was a boy and my dad took me to the circus, I recall that between the big acts like the lion tamer and the tightrope walker there would be little interludes when the clowns would come running out in their midget cars and entertain the crowd doing silly stuff. I loved it.

In the NH House circus, Al Baldasaro's  State-Federal Relations committee is one of these clown acts. Whenever I need a laugh or two, I look at the bills they are dealing with. One of the current bills is HCR6 , a resolution requiring the Congress of the United States of America to reaffirm its adherence to the Constitution of the United States regarding international agreements and treaties. It is sponsored by the usual suspects- Itse, Ulery and Tregenza- and is full of the usual John Bircher/Tenther bluster and bull, saying among other things

New Hampshire can not be bound by any treaty that fails to meet the wording and intent of the Constitution and lacks the approval of 2/3 of the United States Senate;

And then there's this:

...the SPP's stated goals compromise and infringe upon the sovereignty and independence of the sovereign Republic of New Hampshire...

Yep, it's official. Somehow, when we weren't paying attention , something happened.  We became a Republic. This isn't a clerical error. The sponsors repeat the claim several more times.

...the United States of America has not been delegated either the right or the authority to surrender any of the sovereignty or independence of the Republic of New Hampshire to any foreign or supranational body...
...the Constitution for the United States as accepted by the people of New Hampshire requires and demands National federal protection of the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of New Hampshire...
...the New Hampshire Congressional delegation is urged to use diligence in all of its efforts and energies to prevent any further involvement of the government of the Republic of New Hampshire with agreements and treaties..

You cannot make this stuff up.

 
Mike Emm :: The Republic of New Hampshire?
What this very odd bill does is complain about something called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America that Pres. Bush signed with Mexico and Canada in 2005. Since I don't live in wingnutland, I had never heard of the SPP. But I have heard of wikipedia, so I went there and found that the organization was disbanded 2 years ago.

So here we have a bill calling on Congress to disband an already defunct organization that never amounted to much in the first place, all in the name of the Republic of New Hampshire. It's hard to imagine how many jobs will this create, but I suspect it won't be a lot.

Of course, the State-Federal Relations committee being, well, who they are, they recommended that this bill should be passed. They did make one change, though. It's now the "state of New Hampshire" rather than the "Republic of New Hampshire". I guess they figure we aren't ready for stage two of the revolution until after the budget passes.
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Republic of New Hampshire? | 7 comments
Here's the Republic of NH's official seal (0.00 / 0)
http://www.cafepress.com/+repu...  brought to you by the International Libertarian.

 

Can someone explain to me why, if they love the Constitution so much, the right-wingers keep introducing amendments to change it?

Now it all makes sense... (4.00 / 1)
Could not for the life of me figure out why New Hampshire needs a permanent state defense force (see HB343) - with mandatory inactive enlistment of all able-bodied citizens age 18+. But as a sovereign Republic, I can see why we need to be prepared to defend ourselves against invading hoards of Canadians, who might cross our borders to attack us with their massive arsenal of mild manners and niceness...
They need to read the Constitution!!! (4.00 / 3)
Part II, Article 1:

Article 1. [Name of Body Politic.] 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.

If Itse is going to change the name of the State, he needs to propose a constitutional amendment. He and his colleagues are showing a lack of respect toward the founders of our state and the drafters of our Constitution.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

I don't think you fully appreciate the new rules, Kathy (4.00 / 1)

You probably missed this one a few week back, posted in the House Journal:

Whereas under the doctrine of  legislative supremacy, the legislature is the sole decision making branch of government, and

Whereas the Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee of the House has been charged with reviewing the constitutionality of all laws passed by the legislature, and

Whereas Daniel Itse is the chairman of said committee; now,  therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the Honorable Daniel Itse, on behalf of the Speaker of the House,  shall henceforth be solely responsible for determining the constitutionality, or not, of all legislation.

 
[ Parent ]
Maybe he is confusing it (0.00 / 0)
with the Indian Stream Republic?
"What form of government do we have?" the woman asked Baldasaro. (4.00 / 1)
"A republic - if you can fake it."
Republicans are either linguistically challenged or dense. (0.00 / 0)
It's been an article of faith with them that instead of just relying on different languages for their roots, democracy (of the people) and republic (things of the people) actually mean very different things.  Specifically, they perceive that a republic is representative and that, once given, the consent of the people is no longer required for the government to rule over them.  Despite the fact that "sovereign immunity," and with it the concept of sovereign rulers, was terminated with the passage of the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1947 and similar state versions, Republicans are still convinced that the people are subordinate to and subjects of the state, whose "leaders" only differ from traditional sovereigns in that their terms in office are limited.  Otherwise, they perceive the officials we elect to be sovereigns who act on behalf of the people.  
"Father knows best" on the state level.
Of course, when the President belongs to their persuasion, then the President is also omnipotent, much as Hosni Mubarak considered himself the father of Egypt.

Their template for social organization starts with the traditional family with a male head of household -- a pattern that's to be repeated on all political levels.  That the people actually govern just doesn't register because a family is not a democracy.

There is nothing new here.  I've been hearing this explanation since 1978.  Participatory democracy is anathema to Republicans.  The Tea Party people don't want to participate.  They just want to get Republicans back on the straight and narrow, telling people how to behave, in the event that the churches have failed in their mission.

The Republic of New Hampshire? | 7 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox