Not my job? It is if you are an elected Legislator! - Granite Grok

Not my job? It is if you are an elected Legislator!

(former) NH State Rep. Sandra Keans (R, now D): “I don’t try to justify anything by the Constitution, it’s not my job and I don’t want to do it”.

I was asked about that statement (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Your list seems to keep getting longer…I like the way you simply add on…

You quote a statement from Rochester NH’s State Representative and Rochester City Councilor Sandra Keans. You mention she has said “I don’t try to justify anything by the Constitution, it’s not my job, and I don’t want to do it.” If she was asked about this…she would defend herself by saying it’s someone else’s responsibility to pass judgment on Bills etc., through Legal Counsel…

Wouldn’t this make her type of statement true?  To confront her on this would seem to be useless…right? I suspect ALL would use the same justification as her…… Not my Job!

Here is my reply:

First off, THANKS for reading GraniteGrok – we all appreciate the time our readers take out of their busy day to spend it with us!

I HIGHLY disagree with what she would say that it is someone else’s responsibility. Frankly, she’s dead wrong.

Our Social Contract is the Constitution (be it the NH or the US one) – it is written down, easy to read, was vetted, and was voted upon. Plus, if someone doesn’t like it, they can change it (albeit, with difficulty but it should be done ONLY with great need and reservation as bad things come from things done fast (e.g., Prohibition, income taxes, and having US Senators popularly elected).

Philosophically, it is ALL of our duty to not only see to its Letter of the Law (as it is THE Foundational Law) but also the Spirit of it as well. Sadly, too many people like Keans resent the responsibility it places on them – and make no mistake, in identifying government should not do, it limits (or it used to when people obeyed it) what the Proper Role of Government and folks like Kean HATE that idea.

It sure is her responsibility to not only to obey it and act according to its precepts – after all, she swore an oath to defend it (here in the NH Constitution:

[Art.] 84. [Oath of Civil Officers.] Any person chosen governor, councilor, senator, or representative, military or civil officer, (town officers excepted) accepting the trust, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. –

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.

I, A.B. do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as …………………………………………., according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me God.

Any person having taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance, and the same being filed in the secretary’s office, he shall not be obliged to take said oath again.

Provided always, when any person chosen or appointed as aforesaid shall be of the denomination called Quakers, or shall be scrupulous of swearing, and shall decline taking the said oaths, such person shall take and subscribe them, omitting the word “swear,” and likewise the words “So help me God,” subjoining instead thereof, “This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury.”

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm, that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as………………..according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution, and the laws of the State of New Hampshire. So help me God.

So in saying that it is someone else’s responsibility, she’s dead wrong and in taking the oath of office, lying to the public.

Imagine that – a lawmaker that doesn’t believe our Foundational Law does not apply to them as they craft more laws for us. For a great response, see Ian Underwood’s testimony about lawmakers wishing to restrict our Second Amendment / Article 2-A Right (here, emphasis mine):

But I urge the committee to consider a couple of deeper, less obvious consequences, not just of passing a bill like this, but of even bringing it up for consideration.

The first is that a bill like this undermines respect for the very rule of law itself. After all, if the legislature isn’t going to respect the limits placed on it by the NH Constitution, then why should individuals respect the limits placed on them by that legislature — whether regarding guns, or schools, or traffic laws, or anything else?

If we’re going to disregard the big rules, why pay any attention to the smaller ones? For that matter, if words like ‘all’ and ‘person’ no longer mean what they’ve meant for centuries, then why should we pretend that laws, which are made of words, mean anything at all? In other words, if you can behave as if ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all’, why can’t I behave as if ‘not’ doesn’t mean ‘not’?

The second is that one of the things that all persons have the right to defend themselves against is their own government. When (in the words of Article 10) ‘the ends of government are perverted’, the people have not just the right, but the duty, to reform or replace that government, something that might require the use of force. It’s for this reason that an explicit Right of Revolution is recognized by the NH Constitution. And it’s for this reason that it is absurd to give a government you may someday have to fight any say at all over what arms you have.

And this bill does pervert the ends of government, by seeking to force people to make this choice: You can be free, or you can obey the law, but not both.

So the great irony here is that the very existence of this bill, and others like it, is the strongest argument for why, even if passed, they should simply be ignored — thus making felons out of people who are harming no one, but who simply decline to let the fears of a few undermine the freedom of all.”

So you can ask her the same question: if she, as a lawmaker and as a role “leader”, refuses to acknowledge the Constitution, what is she telling the rest of us – that the Rule of Law is only what she says it is? And other than receiving a few more votes than her opposition, what gives her the power to demand that we act according to the Law but she doesn’t?

>