Please join me tomorrow when we (concerned citizens and taxpayers) file this Remonstrance with the General Court (the legislature) to restore parental choice in education, and repeal the unconstitutional property tax forced upon us by government to fund their indoctrination centers called public schools! Please PM me for time and location!
https://x.com/DRichardNH
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100053269301465
To the Honorable General Court
of
The State of New Hampshire
A Memorial and Remonstrance
To the Honorable General Court of the State of New Hampshire
Preamble
We, the undersigned inhabitants, qualified voters, and taxpayers of New Hampshire, under the authority of Part I, article 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution (N.H. Const.), which affirms the right of the people to assemble, consult upon the common good, and remonstrate for redress of grievances, hereby submit this Memorial and Remonstrance. We hold the Constitution of New Hampshire as a covenant between the people and their government, binding every magistrate to preserve it inviolate. When representatives or the judiciary adopt measures that injure the common good or neglect the public welfare, it is the natural and constitutional right of the people to seek redress, as affirmed by Part I, articles 31 and 32, and to reform government when it fails to serve the public good under Part I, article 10.
We protest two distinct but related grievances: the judicial usurpation known as the Claremont Decisions, which unconstitutionally compel taxation for education at the state level, and the 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6, which unlawfully altered the constitutional framework for education and taxation, violating the rights of conscience and procedural requirements.
Grounds of Remonstrance
- Violation of Unalienable Rights of Conscience
Part I, article 4 declares the rights of conscience beyond the reach of civil power. Education, as the instruction of youth in morality and knowledge, is inseparably tied to conscience. Compelling individuals to fund doctrines or instruction against their will, as mandated by the Claremont Decisions, trespasses upon this unalienable right. Similarly, the 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6, by removing “towns” from the entities (parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies) authorized to manage education, deprives parents of their right under Part I, article 4 to exercise their conscience in choosing the manner of their children’s education at their own expense, not the state’s. - Unconstitutional Compulsion to Fund Education
Part I, article 6, prior to 1968, ensured that “no man shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination.” The 1968 amendment removed “towns,” stripping local bodies of their constitutional authority to levy education taxes and creating a void that the judiciary filled through the Claremont Decisions. This judicial invention of a state duty to fund education lacks constitutional grounding and violates Part I, article 6 by compelling taxpayers to fund education without their consent. - Unlawful Taking of Property Without Consent
Part I, article 12 guarantees that no property shall be taken without the consent of the owner or their representative. The statewide property tax for education imposed under Claremont lacks constitutional authorization and constitutes an unlawful taking. The 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6 further exacerbated this by undermining the local control that ensured taxation aligned with community consent. - Exceeding the Objects of Taxation
Part II, article 5 limits taxation to the support of government, defense, and protection of the people. Education is not enumerated as an object of taxation. The Claremont Decisions, by creating a new obligation to fund education statewide, effectively amend the Constitution by judicial decree, a power no court possesses. - Judicial Overreach and Subversion of Popular Sovereignty
The judiciary may interpret law but cannot create authority where the people have withheld it. By declaring a “state duty” to fund education, the Claremont Decisions place the judiciary above the Constitution and the sovereign people who framed it. Additionally, the 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6 violated Part I, articles 1, 12, and 15 (consent clauses) and Part II, article 100 (procedural requirements for amendments) by failing to fully disclose the amendment’s language and intent, misleading voters and undermining their consent. - Historical Context Affirms Local Control of Education
Rev. Nathaniel Bouton’s History of Education in New Hampshire (1833) confirms that schools were historically supported locally by towns and districts, never by a statewide tax. The 1968 amendment’s removal of “towns” from Part I, article 6 disrupted this tradition, and the Claremont Decisions further eroded local control. James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance (1785), John Locke, the English Bill of Rights, and the Protestant tradition all warn against compelling taxation for education, reinforcing that such measures violate liberty and conscience. - Misrepresentation in the 1968 Amendment
The 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6, which removed the term “Protestant,” was misleading. In the original text, “Protestant” was a legal term securing rights of conscience under Part I, article 4. The amendment question lacked clarity and transparency, misrepresenting its effects to voters and violating the procedural integrity required by Part II, article 100.
Instructions to the General Court
Pursuant to our rights under Part I, article 10, which reserves to the people the power to reform government when it fails to serve the public good, we, having assembled and consulted upon the common good, instruct the General Court to take the following actions:
- Repudiate the Claremont Doctrine
Declare the Claremont Decisions’ imposition of a state duty to fund education unconstitutional, as it violates Part I, articles 4, 6, 12, and 15, and Part II, article 5. - Repeal the 1968 Amendment to Part I, article 6
Repeal the unconstitutional 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6, which removed “towns” and “Protestant,” as it violates Part I, articles 1, 4, 12, 15, and 37, and Part II, article 100. - Restore the Original Language of Part I, article 6
Restore the text of Part I, article 6 to its pre-1968 form, as provided for in Part II, article 90, to reaffirm local control and the rights of conscience in education. - Reassert Legislative and Popular Sovereignty
Reassert the General Court’s authority over taxation and education policy, ensuring that no taxation occurs without the consent of the people or their representatives. - Initiate Corrective Measures
Propose a constitutional amendment, if the people so will it, to clarify and secure the principles of local control, consent, and rights of conscience in matters of education and taxation.
Conclusion
We respectfully request that the General Court act promptly to address these grievances, restore harmony to the laws of the state, and uphold the principles enshrined in the New Hampshire Constitution. Every education tax levied under the Claremont Decisions and every application of the 1968 amendment to Part I, article 6 stands as a trespass upon the rights of the people until redress is secured.
Respectfully submitted,
The Subscribers, Inhabitants, Qualified Voters, and Taxpayers of New Hampshire:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
