Or so he basically just said on WMUR News tonite. First, let me set the table:
- NH State Rep Laura Pantelakos (D): “I don’t care about protecting peoples’ Liberty“
- NH State Rep Cynthia Chase (D): (concerning the Free State Project having chosen NH as their destination state, even as Chase did the same as a R.I. transplant): “What we can do is make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict freedoms that they think they will find here.”
- NH State Rep. Debra DeSimone (R): “The Constitution is a guideline”
- 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”.
- NH State Rep. Susan Almy (D): “Well, you don’t get to decide what is Constitutional and I don’t get to decide what is Constitutional, the judiciary decides what is Constitutional”.
We have been talking about the reversal of Rule 63 – the rule of the NH House that has ping-ponged about NH Reps being able to carry firearms in the Hall of Representatives (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Sure, we do like guns (buy, purchase, swap, try, and shoot ) but our coverage of this topic is not just because “GUNS!” but because of the underlying and important Principle that we, the voters, should DEMAND they follow – that our Constitutions are the most foundational law we have and that everyone should hold them foremost when The Law is concerned both to the Letter AND the Spirit thereof. It is clear, however, from the quotes above (from my long running post Progressives and The Proper Role of Government – and your subservience to it.) that many lawmakers, IF they even think of both (US and NH), they think they are more of an annoyance and a hindrance than something they should be:
That ALL Law should rest firmly on the precepts laid out in both the NH and US Constitutions.
But they don’t, especially Democrats, and it isn’t. And this is one reason we end up with the Government stupidity we get when those we expect to do the right things don’t right from the get go. The GOPpers say one should be able to carry as it is a Constitutional Right when they are in the majority but then the Democrats go all Hobbesian and take that Right away when they take the majority. That should tell you what the Democrats think of your Rights – just look at those quotes above.
The number one goal of the Letter itself was to simply say to the extremists out there who may be watching House behavior that even though this Rule exists, do not assume we are unarmed. …The House doesn’t have the authority to strip Constitutional Rights because that is a higher order of precedence when you take a look at where we get/take our authority.
He gets it Right – Constitutional values first. So, what does Shurtleff say?
I know they referred to Natural Rights as part of their argument. In fact, we don’t go by Natural Law, we go by the laws that the Legislature has passed and the Rules of the House that the members pass.
He discombobulates and deflects – he avoids the Constitutional question altogether. Instead, he creates a strawman argument that never existed (like Obama did and continues to do). Jess Edwards talks and wrote about Constitutional values – that has been the thrust of their argument in this whole discussion and not on Natural Law but that’s where Deputy Dawg goes. After all, ground that you create for yourself is safer than real ground when it comes to a Constitutional debate. Yet, he ignores that our Founders certainly considered that Natural Law to be quite important and used the philosophy extensively in writing the Constitution; a most radical idea that helped deprecate the idea that we were simply the property of the Sovereign King. They used natural rights to undermine that and come up with the radical idea that instead of being subservient to Government of the time, we were sovereign in our own right (and no, don’t start in on the Sovereign Citizen crapola).
What he does do, however, makes clear how Progressives see us, them, and the Law. What comes first? It’s rather simple – he, like all Progressives, is a Government Firster – and has no problem in returning us BACK to the time when we were subservient to Government.
It just happens to be that he’s one of the most powerful people in NH Government. Imagine that.
Them. Instead of holding to his oath to the Constitution, it is clear that he and his minions hold themselves up to be the gods they have been waiting for. They are the only reference point(s) needed in order to legislate our behavior (which, if you go back to my Progressives and The Proper Role of Government – and your subservience to it post, and peruse it even quickly, it is easy to tell that they don’t believe they are there to govern but to RULE.
And rule they will outside of any Constitutional constraints any time they can. In fact, that’s exactly what Shurtleff is doing – placing himself, Pure Democracy, and the rest of the Democrats above the Constitution with this rule.
And this is why many of us on the Right are beginning to acknowledge that we may well be at that tipping point of becoming a post-Constitutional State. Bye-bye Republic, hello pure Democracy – the form of Government that the Founders feared the most (after, of course, monarchies). If one holds themselves responsible only to themselves and is an elected official, that’s what you get. After all, once one has shucked off the idea of any limitations on your legislative and rulemaking, you’ve also done the same thing to the idea of a limited Government itself.
Which, it just so happens, is exactly what Progressives / incremental socialist (remember, they can’t tell the difference between them) want – the ability to do what they want free from any constraints whatsoever.
And THAT, my friends, is exactly why Shurtleff couldn’t take on Jess Edwards pointed attacks on Rule 3 and the implied juxtaposition of Article 2-A / Second Amendment. He COULDN’T even bring up the Constitution – he knew he’d lose as soon as he did. So, he attacked something that wasn’t being argued.
It’s what Democrats do. It’s like water on the Wicked Witch of the West to them. It’s like chaining them up and hung upside in a water tank and expect them to be Houdini – it is intellectually impossible for them to handle such a task. That’s one reason why they HAVE to mangle the semantics of the Second Amendment (and refuse to diagram it correctly as to importance of the clauses) and a fer sure reason they never, EVAH quote Article 2-a (which is worded much better and is more direct in defense of that Natural Right to self-defense.
So, I could say that Shurtleff was attacking the legitimacy of the Constitution by attacking, and dismissing, natural rights – in this case, that right to self-defense.
Perfectly Hobbessian – the fertile ground of tyrants everywhere and at every time. And yes, you can make that pregnant inference yourself.
So, I do wonder if the Republican Caucus is willing to go to the mat over this – or the NH GOP in backing up its elected officials. The NH GOP Platform does say that it is a primary pillar of the Party, yes?
We believe that the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions were written by our forefathers to limit our government, not our freedom
Even if it is about limiting Government against itself, right?