CLOSEUP last week: NH Rebellion attack on Free Speech - Granite Grok

CLOSEUP last week: NH Rebellion attack on Free Speech

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

Speech is speech – in the sight of the Founders, there was no “political” speech, there was no “hate” speech, there is no “hurtful” speech – merely speech.  But certainly there are those that believe that THEY have the ability to limit the catagory of speech they don’t like simply because they use Political Correctness to add an adjective in front of “speech”. Certainly, NH Rebellion belongs to this coterie of constrainers.

New WMUR logoFormer NH Supreme Court Justice John Broderick and Daniel Weeks came on CLOSEUP last week to represent NH Rebellion – the group that leans more Democrat than Republican in that it is all about being all about overthrowing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that finally took a common sense action in helping to restoring the true meaning of the First Amendment.  Both said a couple of things with which I saw a twisting of the above inviolate foundational law of our Constitutional Republic:

First I listened to Daniel Weeks twist words that would give an uninformed person the impression that the NH Rebellion is strictly following the NH Constitution:

We go right back to our State Constitution which says that Government must represent the people. when it stops representing the people because big money is setting the agenda, the people may and of a right ought to reform the old or establish a new system.

Right away, I knew that to be a false statement – he completely conflated his desired political end point for what a real clause in the NH Constitution really means.  What NH Rebellion is advocating for is a new system for political campaigns – public funding and constraining of candidate and voter / donor speech.  Regardless of their reasoning, that is the end effect – they want Government to allow speech but only in the way they want it to be.  So even though they rail against “special interests” and their money, the irony is that they are just another special interest themselves trying to use Government to control how their fellow citizens may exercise their speech (except they want to say it is “political” speech as if it were a completely different animal than plain speech).

So where did Weeks deliberately twist the words of the NH Constitution as cover for himself?  The closest is Article 10 an in no way is it talking about a “system” – it is QUITE specific in its intent and applicability:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

This has NOTHING to do with the current system for CAMPAIGNS.  Weeks’ words are an abuse of the direct and overall meaning of Article 10 which is speaking to the current form of GOVERNMENT.  This talks about the rise of a tyrannical government abusing its citizens and that when it happens, citizens are directed to change that government.  Changing campaign rules aren’t even a pale shadow of that responsibility – Article 10 speaks to the whole government and not just a tiny part.  He came out and made it clear that he wants only public funding of elections as he openly advocated for the overthrow of the Supremes Citizens United (again, a Democrat Agenda item) – the subversion of MY involuntary taken tax dollars that would go to someone whose values are antithetical to mine (and visa versa) – that is part and parcel of “Free Speech”?  No, that is either binding or silencing my ability to speak my mind unhindered, unconstrained, and the freedom to not have my speech intermingled with others because of yet even more governmental spending.

Really, should government be in the business of funding those that wish to direct it?  Gosh, isn’t that what government unions are already doing?

In this, Weeks is trying to intimate that changing how citizens express their political leanings, interests, and messages is exactly the same as the wholesale rebellion of an inplace governmental system.  It isn’t.

And then I come to Broderick whose I take to task on two points; the first was his rather weak defense of what NH Rebellion really would accomplish (the Democrat agenda of silencing speech or the severe limiting of such):

The concentration of that wealth…bring democracy back to the people. We want the average voter to have an impact and a $100 or a $1000 should mean something.

For a person of high governmental standing, he certainly knows not of recent political history and campaigning.  He forgets that Carol Shea-Porter took out an incumbent Congressman, Jeb Bradley, on a pittance but a lot of boots on the ground.  He forgets, too, that Bill Binnie spent approximately $436 for each of the votes he got in the Republican Primary in 2010. Here in NH, a lack of money or the overabundance of such, is not the only indicator of success or failure in an election.  So, so much for that line of reasoning.

What I really took exception to was Broderick’s response to Weeks’ abuse of Article 10 – don’t you think, being the Chief person whose responsibility was to judge NH’s statutes and RSAs according to the precepts of our foundational law, the NH Constitution, he should have correctly the false impression that Weeks gave?

The fact that he didn’t says much.  It does bolster, however, his recent coming out as a Democrat, doesn’t it?

 

>