So now that the GOP — the party of small government — has control of both houses, the executive council, and the governor’s office, we should be seeing government get smaller during the next two years, right? There’s nothing standing in the way of repealing laws that fail to meet the four-pronged test that has been at the heart of the GOP platform for more than a century:
- Does this (a) limit, or (b) expand the size or power of government?
- Does this (a) promote, or (b) undermine separation of powers?
- Does this (a) promote, or (b) undermine federalism?
- Does this (a) protect, or (b) abridge the rights of the people?
If the answer is ever (b), it gets tossed. Note that the fourth item requires the repeal of the entire ’emergency powers’ structure that has allowed His Excellency to turn the Granite State republic into a Soviet-style autocracy. And that would be a good place to begin. (Followed closely by the elimination of laws that require people to beg the government for permission, in the form of occupational licenses, to make a living.)
Now, in trying to reduce the size and scope of government, Republicans can expect some resistance from Democrats, who want just the opposite. Since the GOP has a majority everywhere, such resistance should be mostly token in nature. But to help expedite things, an important first step would be for the GOP majority in the House to amend House Rule 63.
Currently that rule states:
- Deadly weapons; electronic devices; cameras. No person, including members of the House, except law enforcement officers while actively engaged in carrying out their duties as such, shall carry or have in possession any deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V while in the House Chamber, anterooms, cloakrooms, or House gallery. Any person in violation of this rule shall be subject to ejection from any such premises on the order of the Speaker and disciplinary action or arrest or both by action of the House. Nothing in this rule shall indicate that the security officer appointed by the House under Rule 61 has the right to stop and search a member of the House on the premises of the House. With the exception of devices for the hearing impaired, no member shall operate audible electronic transmitting and/or receiving devices nor shall any member operate a video camera or a camera utilizing flash bulbs on the floor of the House, while the House is in session.
The amended version should read something like this:
- Entry to House Chamber. No person who was elected as a Democrat shall enter the House Chamber, anterooms, cloakrooms, or House gallery. Any person in violation of this rule shall be subject to ejection from any such premises on the order of the Speaker and disciplinary action or arrest or both by action of the House.
Again, Republicans should expect some resistance to this, but the Democratic leadership spent a significant amount of time in the last session, and in court, arguing that a majority of House members can make any rules they want, without considering whether those rules might violate anyone’s fundamental or civil rights.
So the GOP should take them at their word. If so, we can expect one of two things to happen, either of them a huge improvement over the current situation.
First, any challenge to the new rule would fail in court, since GOP leadership would simply have to present transcripts of testimony from the Democratic leadership to completely vitiate the Democratic case. If the rule prevails, there’s no other action that the GOP could take that would have a greater effect on its ability to use its current majorities to streamline future government. And it would be worth doing for the entertainment value alone.
Or second, a challenge would prevail in court on the grounds that the House Rules may control only the process by which bills are considered and passed, which would rule out future shenanigans by any future House majority — whether that’s trying to restrict fundamental rights (like the right to keep and bear arms), create unconstitutional qualifications (from dress codes to required courses on politically correct topics), or anything else.
Either way it goes, it’s a clear win for smaller, less-intrusive government.
So on day one, we’ll know whether the GOP is really serious about being the party of small government… or whether it just intends to be the party of possibly-slower-growing government.
