I,________, do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the ‘Guidelines?’

by Steve MacDonald

Law outside the lines or guidelinesHas 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.

From Facebook.

“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

Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

 

Leave a Comment

  • C. dog e. doG

    On the silver lining side of the storm cloud, Steve, doesn’t that give us permission to treat the sausage emanating from the gilded dome as guidelines too?
    – C. dog pulling out sticks to break the Hamster’s back

    • nhsteve

      Not saying I would never dump tea in the harbor but I’d be a hypocrite to say the sausage was a guideline, as long as the option for legal recourse remained.

      • C. dog e. doG

        How many years you got left? I’m still focused on freedom in my lifetime.
        – C. dog still buying green bananas, but not banana saplings

        • nhsteve

          God only knows but I’ll be 50 this year so if I have any say and the quality of life is tolerable I’d like to cling to my mortal coil for another 40 years or so.

          • C. dog e. doG

            So, now for the hard question: what % of that are you willing to forego a good tea dumping in pursuit of exhausting other avenues?
            – C. dog: uplift by separate

          • Susan

            Exhausting or taking other avenues, ma petit chien?

          • C. dog e. doG

            Already on paths to other avenues – Carpe diem! (pssst, but under the Nanny radar). By the way, merci por la petite fete aujourd’hui. C’etait magnifique!
            – C. dog, mais un cur

          • Susan

            Many thanks….I look forward to your traffic direction. And if you were there yesterday, I am sorry we did not meet…we have in spirit..

          • C. dog e. doG

            I’ll never kiss and tell, by you do sport a mighty fine side-arm.
            – C. dog

          • Susan

            Well well…next time, I expect at least a ‘woof’ in passing.

          • granitegrok

            And we’ll keep a treat in the bag, too. All dogs LOVE treats, right?

          • nhsteve

            Having put myself in the sights already–at least a lttile bit–I’d hope to see my children either grown and at a safer distance or old enough to decide for themselves whether they wish to stand beside me,

            At least a handful of years plus one unless that option is not permitted.

            And yes. It is all for the children. They deserve to be left somethign worth having.

          • C. dog e. doG

            Legacy does matter, which is why I advocate that those in New Hamster seek to disengage from the Leviathan as efficiently as we can muster the troops and wherewithal. Maybe Texas will pave the way for smaller states to follow. Maybe we can cut a deal with China to become the state with a free port on the eastern seaboard. Maybe we become more of a New Nevada, but with water and a port. There are certainly avenues to pursue, and miles to go before I sleep.
            – C. dog of a frosty mourn

  • Susan

    What was it Jack Kimball said today? If they violate their oath, throw the bums and bumettes out?

  • Kevin Kervick

    Yes, but many of our libertarian/anarchist friends also do not abide the Constitution either because it comes from government. I’m not surprised she scored a B from NHLA.

    • C. dog e. doG

      Are the NHLA scores weighted for intensity of impact? Some infringements are worse than others.
      – C. dog adjusting for grade inflation

    • nhsteve

      The government prepared it. A super majority of the states and people approved it. I would argue that this idea that it comes from government is flawed.

      That very limitation, having to get acceptance from the states, is why the ‘government’ now does as much of its amending through courts and bad lawmaking–becasue the people would never approve it for them.

  • Pingback: Honoring your Oath? Others seem to believe your oath to the Constitution is not mere words. Here’s another one: Accountability — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Progressive view of The Proper Role of Government – and your subservience to it. — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Constitution — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Gene Chandler — GraniteGrok()

Previous post:

Next post: