If the voters themselves don’t care, we’re done for. Or at least I thought we were for how else does one hold a politician that refuses to honor their oath? Surprise!”
Spoiler: Remonstrance.
I did a post on our NH elected politicians back in November: “Rampant disrespect for the oath of office has become the norm” that, for some unknown reason, keeps getting a lot of hits and has been bouncing in and out of our “Hot on the Grok” section on the top of the home page (currently, it ranks #3).
It talked about that violating one’s oath of office, in which part of it is to follow and protect Constitutional values, could invoke a Federal crime. Yet, we have seen, time and time again, politicians on both sides of the aisle file bills, vote on them, and pass them into law that are completely unconstitutional at either the US or NH level (and sometimes both). I quoted American Thinker in that post:
Unless a winning candidate takes the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, he cannot take office. But there is more to the law than that. In order to take office, a candidate who has won an election must take the oath honestly, free of perjury, and without reservation. If a candidate takes the oath with the intent not to keep the oath, the oath is invalid, and the candidate is ineligible to hold office, per the law. Yet the governments of America are rife with officials who violate their oath. Not only that, but candidates are permitted to take the oath, and then to take office, about whom it is well known before the fact that they do not bear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
How is this known? In many cases, the candidates tell us frankly that they are opposed to all that. But even though they tell us, no one in authority is willing to prevent them from taking office, as per the requirement of the law and common sense.
Which leaves us with the problem – how CAN we force them to honor their oaths? In many cases, it is only at the ballot box and even at that, the people who fill said boxes must be mindful of the candidates they are voting for. If the voters themselves don’t care, we’re done for. Or at least I thought we were for how else does one hold a politician that refuses to honor their oath? Surprise!
So what is a Remonstrance with regard to the NH House and NH Senate?
Remonstrance:
- The act of remonstrating.
- An expression of protest, complaint, or reproof, especially a formal statement of grievances.
From Dan Richard this morning:
I filed a Memorial and Remonstrance today. This is one way to hold the members of the General Court accountable to their sworn oath of allegiance to the Constitution of New Hampshire. Remonstrating HB 687-FN aka Red flag law.
This is how you can protest any proposed petition.
I did not know about a Remonstrance so I’ve talked with Dan on a few occasions now to get a feel for his background, how he discovered this process, and now, to follow it through.
My main purpose in posting this is to show / demonstrate that there are other ways than the ballot box to keep politicians and the bills they set up within the “box of the Constitutions”. We’ve agreed that he’s going to provide GraniteGrok readers more background and a running commentary as this Remonstrance goes through its process.
In other words, a How To Guide for when ANY of us believe that a bill is unconstitutional in one way or another. After all:
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”.
Gee whiz, Sandra, now you have to! We The People now have a new tool to MAKE you, as the current new fad word states, mindful of both your oath, your Constitution, and your role in making sure that all bills are within Constitutional muster instead of outsourcing your part in this to the Judiciary. Think of it this way – a State Rep or Senator is both a developer AND a QA person rolled into one – craft the bill and then do the Quality Assurance part to make sure the bill isn’t “broken Constitutionally” before being voted and passed on.
It’s called “Doing your job RIGHT THE FIRST TIME” – like we all have to do out in the private sector. No a half-a## job.
The following is the Remonstrance for HB 687-FN Extreme Risk Protection Orders. NH State Representative Ray Howard (R-Alton) witnessed the delivery of the document and being stamped by the clerks. (SPONSORS: Rep. Altschiller, Rock. 19; Rep. Fenton, Ches. 8; Rep. Knirk, Carr. 3; Rep. Backus, Hills. 19; Rep. Espitia, Hills. 31; Rep. Mulligan, Graf. 12; Sen. Watters, Dist 4; Sen. Sherman, Dist 24; Sen. Hennessey, Dist 5; Sen. Dietsch, Dist 9; Sen. Kahn, Dist 10)
**********************
The WORD doc is HB 687-FN Remonstrance.
The text of the Remonstrance is here:
To the Honorable General Court
Of
The State of New Hampshire
__________________________________
A Memorial and Remonstrance
__________________________________
Daniel A. Richard
A Citizen Of
The State of New Hampshire
v.
President of the Senate,
Donna Soucy,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Stephen Shurtleff,
___________________________________
Under the Authority of the Constitution of New Hampshire, Bill of Rights Part I Article VIII;
“All power residing originally in, and being derived from the people, all the magistrates and officers of government, are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.”
Now comes Daniel A. Richard of Auburn N.H. do hereby site and state the following violations of the Constitution of New Hampshire and the Constitution for the United States of America
____________________________________
Notice of Violation of Constitutional Articles.
Notice of Violations of the Rules of the General Court.
Notice that HB 687-FN thus violates the oath of office, and
all persons concerned, are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.
___________________________________
As an Inhabitant, a citizen of the said State, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Court, entitled “A Bill HB 687-FN relative to extreme risk protection orders,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, I am bound as (a) faithful member of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which I am determined. I remonstrate against the said Bill,
- Because the people hold it a fundamental truth, Part I Bill of Rights Article II,
“That all men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty— acquiring, possessing and protecting property —and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness”. - Because the people who established the Constitution of New Hampshire created Part I the Bill of Rights first for a reason, for enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Part II Form of Government was created to protect Part I the Bill of Rights. The people’s fundamental rights are unalienable and as such cannot be deprived by legislative acts, nor are the inhabitants of this State controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body of the people (inhabitants) have given their consent by and through the amendment process of Part II Article 100. The General Court has no delegated power to amend the Constitution by legislative acts.
- Because the Constitution of New Hampshire is a protection contract.
- Because, Part I Bill of Rights Article XII;
“Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property; But no part of a man’s property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this State controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body have given their consent.” - Because the General Court has duty to assemble for redress of grievance, Part I Bill of Rights Article XXXI;
“The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new ones, as the common good may require.” - Because the people have a right to petition or remonstrate the General Court, Part I Bill of Rights Article XXXII;
“The people have a right in an Orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.” - Because the people have a right to require of their law-givers an exact and constant observance of them in the formation of the laws, Part I Bill of Rights Article XXXVIII;
“A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government ; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives: And they have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government.” and, - Because, HB 687-FN deprives every citizen of the State the substantive and procedural due process right required under the Constitution of New Hampshire and the rules of the General Court to create and enact any public policy, and
- Because the General Court’s powers are defined by the people in Part II Article V, the power to enact and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; Said power also comes with the prohibition that they shall not create anything that is repugnant or contrary to said Constitution, and,
- Because, HB 687 violates the constitutional compliance of Part II Article V and House rule 44 (d), and is repugnant and contrary to the State and Federal Constitutions.
- Because, HB 687-FN violates the U.S. 14th amendment;
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” - Because, HB 687-FN if enacted would deprive every member of the community due process of law by the creation of a statutory cause action in the absence of an injured party claiming an “injury in fact” in direct violation of substantive and procedural due process rights of every member of the community secured by, Part I Bill of Rights Article XIV;
“Every subject of this State is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he may receive in his person, property or character, to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it ; completely, and without any denial ; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws.” and, - Part I Bill of Rights Article XV;
“No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself: To meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense by himself and counsel. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” and, - Because, HB 687-FN if enacted would deprive every member of the community the right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions by the creation of a statutory cause action in direct violation of, Part I Bill of Rights Article XIX;
“Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath, or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.” and, - Because, in the absence of an “injury in fact”, those who are defined in HB 687-FN, 159-E:1 Definitions, chapter: VI. as a “Petitioner” have no standing as there is no injured party. The state cannot be an injured party as there is no “injury in fact”.
- Because, United States Supreme Court; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
“As courts have been presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they have found means of doing so. That was our responsibility when Escobedo was before us, and it is our responsibility today. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.” - Because New Hampshire Constitution Bill of Rights Article’s XII, XVI, XV, XIX are still the laws of the land, HB 687-FN cannot be enacted as this Bill is in direct conflict with said Articles and the Bill is not in harmony with fundamental rights protected by said Constitution.
- Because Constitutional supremacy is reaffirmed by House Rule 64. Public policy must always be subordinate to the Constitution.
- Where fore the Representatives of General Court who have voted yes on HB 687-FN have violated their oath and the rules adopted by the General Court.
- Because CHAPTER 92 TENURE AND OATH OF OFFICE IN CERTAIN CASES N.H.RSA 92:2 Oath Required. – and any such person who violates said oath after taking the same shall be forthwith dismissed from the office or position involved.
- Because any such violation of oath office which results in the depravation of rights under color of law is subject to 42 U.S. Code § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights;
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
I, Daniel A. Richard swear that all the information provided above to be true and correct.
Executed the_______ day of ________ , Two Thousand, Twenty
_________________________________________________
