Has ignorance reared its ugly head again in the New Hampshire Legislature Yeah, yeah, more times per day than we could count with all those people there. Actually, I’m referring to Debra DeSimone, Rockingham 14 who seems to have a questionable view of her relationship to the constitution. According to Ms. De Simone, the constitution is really just a guideline and we have House Rep George Lambert (Hills – 44) to thank for sharing that news with us.
“House quote of the day “the constitution is a guideline” not a requirement. – and yes she said “I swore to uphold the guideline” if it is just a guideline, how will it’s protections actually defend you…”
And an inch is just a guideline when building a house. So what if you are off a few inches or bits of inches here and there. A foot here, a yard there. (as long as it doesn’t fall down while you’re standing next to it, right?)
So it’s Guidelines is it, Debra? Well I checked the oath of office. The word “Guidelines” isn’t in there.
Is there something we need to know? Are there other things you’ve changed the words to in your head, fingers crossed, while reciting them? And could this Debra-DeSimone-constitutional-conundrum suggest the bluing of her once “more-Republican” political worldview?
Debra didn’t start out as a RINO but with talk like that it may be too late. She may have contracted a terminal case of Concord Fever.
You get Concord Fever from being immersed in the bureaucracy for too long. The endless chatter, the lobbyists, the swarms of state employees, and the leftist stench that seeps from the fat folds of a corpulent government-dependent capital-city constantly crying for another giant bag of tax-payer flavored Doritos.
It is New Hampshire’s version of the Georgetown flu. Some catch it quick, some never, some arrive with it by the bus-load like moths to flame, or groupies at a convention for typhoid Mary’s, intent on infecting everyone they can.
And because Human nature encourages us to seek the path of least resistance, to give in to peer pressure, to fit in, Concord Fever, or Georgetown Flu, has no shortage of new hosts among the brethren of the first church of government before the people.
And what of Debra?
Debra has been in the House since the 2008 election, serving 2009-2010, 2011-2012, and now again for 2013-2014. Looking back, as a snappy freshman, her NHHRA score for 2009-2010–a sign of how well she votes with regard to her party platform-was a solid 90%. That breaks down to a barely passable 83% in 2009 and an impressive 95% in 2010. Surrounded as she was by a Democrat majority seems to have served her instincts well.
Moving on to the 2011-2012 session something changed. She dropped all the way down to a 77%. Her session score from the RLCNH was a 70%. The only decent trend I could find was from the NHLA which gave her a grade of B every year she has served since 2009. But in 2012…she dropped to a B-.
That means, more likely than not, that she migrated to the left on some social issues and has grown more comfortable surrounded by the clucking hens in the “something must be done crowd.”
And now we’ve got this whole “guideline” thing? (Are you already denying you said it?)
Debra isn’t the only Republican with this potential problem. There are a lot of people who look at the law and then act as if it were just a guideline. Many of those people get arrested. Some of them go to jail. Do you know why? Because the law is the law. It is not a suggestion. It is not always right, or careful, or relevant, but there is a process for fixing that.
And the Constitution is the law of the law. We didn’t have a break-out session and come up with some action items. The Constitution limits government power so that as it performs its basic duty to ensure that civil society stays civil it does not evolve into a despotic police state run by people who govern based on transient principles.
It defines what law can and cannot do, how it is to be made and unmade, to ensure that peoples natural rights and freedoms are not trampled by busy-body legislators and peace officers infected with the uncontrollable desire to appear to be doing something, even when that something could threaten other peoples liberty and property.
Law is serious business; more serious because the people most affected are those most inclined to follow it, even when they would like to make a few modifications.
People of principle and character play by the rules and follow the law even when they wish to change it, while those less inclined to do so drift into a toxic gray area where feelings and emotions become the guidelines that define the edges of a now inconvenient social and cultural morality.
You do understand that Hitler got to power by just following the guidelines which he later disposed of when even those stood between him and his destiny as a dictator? And he’s not alone. Republics reduced to raw democracies by guideline followers inevitably become despotic because of human nature and its relationship to power. All you have to do is follow the guidelines and ignore anything inconvenient until the only inconvenient thing left is the people who are upset about losing their freedom–but that is what the secret police are for, right? Evolution isn’t just about explaining how you and a sperm whale could have descended from the same goo even if the math doesn’t work. It works for the destruction of freedom just as well.
How does the saying go, the biggest storm announces itself with a simple breeze? Guidelines? Did someone leave a door open?
Please do not presume to think I am accusing anyone of anything other than being caught saying something silly or succumbing to wrong-headed thinking. I am merely using the occasion of this seeming indifference to the risk the notion of ‘guidelines’ presents to explore the larger problem.
For the record, it is a wholly progressive socialist notion, and it is their erstwhile wish that the document be neutered so that they may do whatever strikes their fancy without fear of interference from the people whom they swore–to the Constitution -to protect from government tyranny.
But seeing as these same people appear insistent at playing the role of “lawmaker,” sworn to protect and defend that constitution, might I be so bold as to suggest that it is in our best interest to accept that the Constitution is not a guideline no matter how many well-meaning, progressive harpies, chat you up differently in the ladies room. A constitution is the Granite upon which the waves of whimsy crash.
In case anyone has forgotten…a legislators first obligation is to those documents.
I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.
The word support in the oath does not mean to carry it around and ignore everything it means. And in case you are curious, ‘bear faith’ has nothing to do with bears. And claiming you swore to the guidelines is not “faith and true allegiance to…” It’s a cop-out and your constituents deserve better.
And if, for example, one of your own well-meaning constituents, the ones who email you weekly and call and stop you in the store, ask you to propose or vote for something that clearly fails a constitutional test, your role is that of an educator, an instructor or interpreter of civics; not a drug mule who carries every bat-sh*t notion to the state house as a litmus test to see how far we can stretch those ‘guidelines.’
When other representatives bring forward legislation your role is to serve as a constitutional filter for your constituents -who were supposed to have chosen you because they felt you qualified to protect their interests in the capital. So when the clown car filled with LSR’s unloads Bill after Bill, you will be there for them, to make sure it does not violate, first and foremost, the highest law in the land. That would be the New Hampshire State Constitution and the US Constitution.
If a Bill passes that basic test, and there is a lot of room in there, then the rest is left to your understanding of your district,and your judgement based on your principles, assuming you have some. And I don’t mean just you, I refer to every elected official, judge, appointee, paper pusher or public employee, whose actions can or will affect the liberty or property of the people who pay their way; far too many of whom–I might add– see far too much of the constitution, the law itself, as little more than just a guideline.
That kind of thinking is lazy and we can get it, even indexed for inflation, at a dime a dozen. But people of principle who know the law and understand why it can and often should be so hard to change are rare. People who do not think of the government first every time the emotional wind blows their way are just as rare.
That is why we need a constitution and we need to defend it. To protect us from the kind of knee-jerk, crisis legislating that leads to losses of freedom, intentional or not.
No one swears to uphold something as ephemeral as a guideline. You might just as well have not sworn to do anything at all. Oh, wait. It appears that you did just that.
You are reading “I,________, do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the ‘Guidelines?’” by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)
Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
