NH House Too Extreme for Gingrich and Union Leader

My LTE regarding nullification (4.00 / 1)

a couple of weeks ago, with a response that one of my friends called my attention to.  My letter (I can't find it on Foster's site, it was in late March:

As I've said before, I am often puzzled nowadays.  But now I think I know why we might need that militia (HB343).   On March 19th, the Speaker of the NH House, Bill O'Brien, the head of the NHGOP, Jack Kimball, and Rep. Dan Itse, self-proclaimed constitutional expert, will be speaking at the Nullify Now New Hampshire forum at SNHU.  
So what's this nullification stuff?  Well, it's a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law that a state has deemed unconstitutional.  But doesn't the US Constitution say that "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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding"?
I don't know about you, but I really like being a citizen of the United States. I don't really think being a citizen of the Republic of NH would have the same benefits for me, especially if the current legislature was running things!
And the militia?  Well, I suspect if we try to nullify federal laws, there just might be some efforts to enforce them.  Could they find enough NH citizens willing to fight their own country?  Sure doesn't sound very patriotic to me!

And here's the response:

To the editor: In a recent letter Lucy Edwards attempted to refute the right of the state to nullify federal law. Perhaps I can relieve some of the puzzlement that recently afflicts Ms. Edwards.

She claims that nullification is in conflict with the supremacy clause, which states: "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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The consequence of Edwards' interpretation would be that the power of the federal government is beyond review, and without limit. Before the Civil War, nullification was used to prevent local enforcement of The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, which required states to return escaped slaves to their owners in the "slave states." In essence, states that nullified these laws refused to recognize the federal government's codification of the abomination of slavery. According to Ms. Edwards' thinking, such resistance to tyranny would be prohibited by the supremacy clause

The opening phrase of this clause refutes Edwards' assertion, because it limits federal action to what is enumerated in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment states that "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." More importantly, the states created the federal government, and therefore can act to mitigate its excesses. It follows then that, whenever the federal government exceeds its authority, individual states have an absolute right to declare these laws as null and void.

Lucy Edwards' tongue-in-cheek conclusion suggesting a confrontation between a New Hampshire state militia and federal force is unlikely. California, and other states, nullified federal drug prohibitions by adopting medical marijuana laws. Along with at least 16 other states, New Hampshire passed legislation which effectively forestalled implementation of the REAL ID Act. I don't recall any bloodshed.

The growing nullification movement provides a positive check on a federal government run amok.

I'm sure the author is not going to be happy with the UL or Mr. Gingrich.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 21:28:29 PM UTC

Great letter, Lucy! n/t (4.00 / 1)

"Politics ain't beanbag" - Finley Peter Dunne

---

by: William Tucker @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 21:50:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is there no room on Glenn Beck's chalkboard for Judiciary branch of gov't? (4.00 / 1)

The consequence of Edwards' interpretation would be that the power of the federal government is beyond review, and without limit.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 23:39:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Free (S)Taters (0.00 / 0)

"And the militia?  Well, I suspect if we try to nullify federal laws, there just might be some efforts to enforce them.  Could they find enough NH citizens willing to fight their own country?  Sure doesn't sound very patriotic to me!"

They won't need NH citizens, we're being taken over remember? The viability of a NH Militia to fight off the Feds will depend on how many Free Staters flock to the banner.

---

by: Brian K @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 16:28:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who ya gonna believe... (4.00 / 2)

Gingrich or Itse?

[T]hey are wrong that the State of New Hampshire can simply declare those actions null and void... This question was settled in the 19th century.

Dan 'The Nullifier' Itse's Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification committee, ably assisted by Rep. Seth Cohn,  held hearings on HCR19 and declared it to be fine-and-dandy with them. Why should we believe Gingrich when we such eminent scholars on all things constitutional as Itse and Cohn to guide us?

---

by: Mike Emm @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 21:47:08 PM UTC

Itse. (4.00 / 2)

The same Itse who disavows the notion thath there are three equal and seperate branches of government...and who believes that the Legislature has the aurthority to order the Judiciary and the Executive branches about as if theyr were merely his personal lapdogs....

---

by: Tully Fitzsimmons @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 22:17:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed... except the committee sided with Hamilton... (0.00 / 0)

http://thefederalistpapers.org...

"But it will not follow from this doctrine [Supremacy Clause] that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."

But hey, let's not let the view of the chief Federalist (who was in favor of the Supremacy Clause) get in the way of BHers agreeing with Newt Gingrich.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 18:01:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Representative Cohn (0.00 / 0)

Let me assure you that you do not create prize-winning commentary.

You are here at our whim. This is a privately owned site, and as such, we can toss your silly ass out whenever we feel like it. When you make comments that are troll worthy, you get troll rated. Surely even a Teathuglican legislator from the least auspicious NH House class EVER can understand something as simple as that.

refresher on the rating rules:

if you feel that a comment was written whose sole purpose is to degrade the conversation or be intentionally abusive, you may choose to give it a 0 or Troll rating, a substantial number of which will cause the comment to be hidden. A significant number of troll ratings may also result in the account being banned. Note: Troll rating a comment simply because you disagree with it is considered ratings abuse and is grounds for banning the user.

It really is amusing that someone desperate to be seen as an alpa teabag is such a thin-skinned whiner.

Or perhaps you want to be banned, so that you don't have to keep on explaining to Boss O'Brien what you're doing here?  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 19:09:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hey, brilliant constitutional scholar... (4.00 / 1)

did you even read the freaking HCR your committee was supposed to review? If you did, you might have noticed that the "Resolved' portion of the HCR, i.e. what real legislators call the meat-and-potatoes, starts with this:

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...

This made it through two committees? I count 4 grammar errors in just this short little bit. Too funny.

You guys run around quoting Hamilton to each other and you can't find errors in a simple sentence? What a bunch of poseurs. Look, I don't expect you to understand the big picture given your obvious limitations, but for Pete's sake get the little things right. You're making my state look ridiculous.

---

by: Mike Emm @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 19:21:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Luckily (0.00 / 0)

the Constitution created a specific committee in the New Hampshire General Court to determine whether specific federal laws were Constitutional. That way, there could be no confusion between supplemental legal materials (such as the Federalist Papers) and actual law under the Constitution. It's amazing that there would be no other legal authority charged with determining whether specific federal laws were Constitutional, but luckily we have this random committee created by a pseudo-dictatorial Speaker of the New Hampshire General Court to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. It's unfortunate that no other body was created under the Constitution to render these judgments, that would have made these decisions much simpler.

---

by: nhdemocrat @ Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:25:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anarchists in our General Court (0.00 / 0)

When you are miles to the right of Newt and Joe McQuaid I think even the word extremist is a little weak.

"Anarchists" is coming into focus.  

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 22:32:33 PM UTC

But they want to use the state to (4.00 / 3)

interfere with individual health care choices, and block employers and workers from agreeing to union contracts.

Sacco and Vanzetti would spurn them.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 23:02:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, they're all about "liberty" (0.00 / 0)

for themselves, white males who have "traditional" families, with a bunch of hostages (we usually call them wives and children), and lots of guns to fight off the other little "liberty-lovers" for the spoils.  Or so they dream.  
They'd hate the world they'd get if they got their wishes, though.  They are entirely dependent on all the government stuff they hate for their standard of living and their safety, and would never have survived on the frontier, which is the only place that ever came close to their dream.  And the people on the frontier couldn't wait until enough people got there so they could build communities and have some government.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 23:13:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Coming April 15th Atlas Shrugged (0.00 / 0)

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1....

Check the link. Then Check Granite Grok to see these sunny faces declaring their "Galt-ness"

Yes--I agree, they are John Galt. They are all fictional characters instead of people with roots in the dirt, trying to carve out a life of their own.

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 23:57:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know you've really gone off the deep end when... (0.00 / 0)

...even the Union-Leader thinks you've gone too far.

---

by: romulusnr @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 23:44:26 PM UTC

free state heaven (0.00 / 0)

Why aren't all the Freestate Dipweeds moving to Somalia---no pesky big gov---total freedom! Seems that is the kind of government they like.

---

by: tchair @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 00:50:59 AM UTC

Oh, no! (0.00 / 0)

That wouldn't work at all.  Because the only way they can create their fantasy is to have us all supporting them while they do it.  Somalia is really dangerous.  Here they can fight imaginary enemies.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 00:59:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

bottom line: (0.00 / 0)

There are pirates with guns in Somalia. They know we (most of we, anyhow)  aren't armed.

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:22:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yet. n/t (0.00 / 0)

They. Don't. Care.
We do.
Rinse, repeat.

---

by: GreyMike @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:01:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not yet. (0.00 / 0)

N/T

---

by: mevansnh @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:16:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]