Articles tagged as

NH Constitution

Of Militia

Americans suffer from a political disability. They no longer understand the intent of the most fundamental organs of our government. If you as the typical American ask what a militia is, they will tell likely you that it is a group of people playing army in the woods. Or even worse, they will tell that it is people organizing to fight the government. If you ask them how a militia is formed, they will reply that someone just gets a bunch of friends to follow them. Appoints himself as leader and others as subordinate officers. All of this seems to proceed out of a mythology surrounding the American War for Independence.

There is an idea that local leaders simply decided to form militia companies, and other local people fell in behind them. Then they all just marched off to fight the British. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Read more

Sales Tax in NH – A Constitutional & NH House take on S. Dakota vs Wayfair SCOTUS decision

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down an opinion in the South Dakota versus Wayfair (SD v Wayfair). The South Dakota Legislature had passed a law that enabled South Dakota to go after taxes on purchases citizens had made from Wayfair. The S. D. Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional, and it was appealed to SCOTUS. Previously, SCOTUS had held the opinion that no taxes could be collected if the retailer had no substantial physical presence in the State seeking the tax revenue.

Parallel to this an organization has grown up.

Read more

New Hampshire Secretary of State Confused About Voter Fraud, Laws, Words, Election Integrity

Bill Gardner
Image Credit: Daily Caller

The lunacy involving NH permitting illegal, out-of-state voting which has continued because there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how laws work, and what words mean. I can’t even begin to imagine how people in charge of New Hampshire’s election laws read a court case. There is solid proof they only accept parts of decisions.

Here is an article former newspaper reporter Drew Cline wrote which includes some interesting observations of our election laws – by Secretary of State William Gardner. He claims our election laws permit illegal voting – which is hard to comprehend.  The article: September 24. 2014 8:57 PM.

Read more

New Hampshire Governors fail in the Oath of Office

Note: we welcome Dan Itse to our ranks as a Grokster! A long time member of the NH House of Representatives, he was acknowledged to be one of the foremost experts on both the US and NH Constitutions here in the State of NH and with his first post, he does not disappoint by bringing to light some responsibilities that many of us didn’t know we had – including our elected officials!

Welcome, Dan!

***************************

nhmilita38-150_med

New Hampshire Governors, like every elected officer of the State and many appointed officers take an oath to uphold The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, and the Constitution for the United States of America. However, I would wager most do not know these documents to well enough to know the full scope of or limitations upon the office they hold. Part 1, Article 24 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire proclaims:

“A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a State.”

This sentiment is echoed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:

Read more

Why Don’t We Obsess Over “Inhabitant” – The Story Of NH Voter Fraud

Burning USS Raleigh on NH State FlagThe Governor of the State of New Hampshire, through the Executive Council, has sent a letter to the NH State Supreme Court in an attempt to clarify the definition of RESIDENT vs. DOMICILE when it comes to voting.

It is a shame we are still falling for the resident/domicile scam that NH uses to let non-citizens vote in our Federal Elections.

The word RESIDENT is not even in Article 11 of the NH State Constitution.

See if you can please help me find it:

Read more

The Guy Behind Marsy’s Law Has Spent at Least 27 Million Nationally – How Much in New Hampshire?

Henry T Nicholas III political givingDemocrats like to talk about “keeping money out of politics.” Well, meet Henry T. Nicholas III, a wealthy Corporate baron. One of those ‘Big’ corporation guys the left ‘hates’ so much.  He’s also the brother of Marsalee, the woman for whom Marsy’s Law is named, and the money behind the push to amend the NH Constitution under the cover of “victims rights” reform.

Henry T. x3 has spent several million in New Hampshire already to advance his pet project to the detriment of victims, the constitutional protections of the accused, but that’s peanuts compared to the $29.49 million he has spent on political initiatives over the past nine years.

Read more

Problem: Criminal Justice System Ignoring the Law – Solution: Amend a Constitution They Also Ignore

NH Assoc of Chiefs of PoliceI don’t believe the New Hampshire AG ever investigated claims by NH Police Chief Andrew Shagoury when, in his opposition to concealed carry, he suggested to a State House Committee that minors might have been issued pistol revolver licenses. That would be in violation of state law, as would his knowing it and not demanding an investigation himself.

Let me amend that. I know the AG didn’t because the gun-ban left would have short-stroked that for months to justify letting the government (the same elite club that may have broken the law to give concealed carry permits to minors) use the law to keep you from getting one.

That’s how government works if you happen to be new to this. And it’s why we hope the Committee vote to ITL Marsey’s Law sticks. But back to the Chief.

Read more

Some thoughts on the Pindell / Cline / Douglas criticisms of the Honor Your Oath Rally – Part 1

I’m not even sure that James Pindell, Chuck Douglas, and Drew Cline were even at the same rally I was from reading their criticism (one at the WMUR site, two Union Leader Op-Eds)  – or even bothered to watched the videos that were up at several sites.  Each of them decided to tear the folks apart that stood up for their beliefs without seeing what was, to me, the obvious.  In fact, I’m not even sure they even saw the obvious reason why 600 folks turned out to participate, volunteers doing the grunt work necessary to put on such an event, and the dozen or so speakers up at the podium.  Yes, when you put yourself out in public, this is what happens – others will take pot shots at you, at the rally, or the issue for a variety of reasons:  their sense of “professionalism”, their overarching specialized knowledge has been “violated”, their standing within their own specialized communities “demands” they take a stand, or they decided to reject the perceived issue out of hand as “being without merit”.  None of them seem to have caught the intense sense of importance of the actual subject to the speakers and the attendees.

Or, to put it simply, wielding a hatchet just because they have an audience to impress or a thinly veiled purpose that may be getting set for the future.  Or both.

Honor Your Oath.  It wasn’t about journalists worried about column inches, punctuation, and delicately chosen words and sentence structure; it is about keeping a promise.  It wasn’t about case law, or legal briefs, or court battles (even if from a former Supreme Court Justice);  it is about a man and the importance of his word.  It was not about bright lights, teleprompters, self-absorption, politics, or even the crowd; it is about judging a man and his bond.  It wasn’t about guns or self-defense or “Stand Your Ground” (although that’s all these three seemingly heard), it wasn’t about Right or Left; it is about answering the question “Do we trust this person when their actions do not match that Oath”?

Read more

NH Constitution: Part 1, Article 28-A

NH Constitution:

[Art.] 28. [Taxes, by Whom Levied.] No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duty, shall be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, or their representatives in the legislature, or authority derived from that body.

November 28, 1984

During my second term as a Budget Committee, I started to ask a question of both the Town leaders and of the School Board: “how many programs is the State forcing us to do and for which they send no or not enough money?  Hey, why are we doing all these things for free?  Has anyone ever said “No” (or even bothered)?  Sadly, those that were elected had never even contemplated such a thing and when I pursued the question, no one could even answer the question.  Worse, when I started to dig in my heels on this, I got outvoted when I made a motion – nobody cared and the Selectmen and School Board did not want be bothered.  It was not worth their effort to say “look at the money we can save” and be willing to use the NH Constitution as a defensive shield (which is what this article is supposed to do to protect the taxpayers against predatory politicians).

Thus, I was somewhat cheered when I read this in the Laconia Daily Sun:

Read more

Does the Gas Tax Bill The NH House Just Passed Violate the State Constitution?

NH House passes gas tax in violation of NH Constitution

The short answer is yes.  Yes, it does.  (The long answer will be nothing but excuses from its proponents.)

Part II, Article 6-a, states that any money raised through gas taxes (gas road tolls), must be used exclusively for public highways and “no part of such revenues shall, by transfer or funds or otherwise, be diverted to any other purpose whatsoever.”

[Art.] 6-a. [Use of Certain Revenues Restricted to Highways.] All revenue in excess of the necessary cost of collection and administration accruing to the state from registration fees, operators’ licenses, gasoline road tolls or any other special charges or taxes with respect to the operation of motor vehicles or the sale or consumption of motor vehicle fuels shall be appropriated and used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of public highways within this state, including the supervision of traffic thereon and payment of the interest and principal of obligations incurred for said purposes; and no part of such revenues shall, by transfer of funds or otherwise, be diverted to any other purpose whatsoever.

So HB 617 is unconstitutional.

Read more

The War on Poor Children by Religious Bigots in New Hampshire

There is an excellent article over at Math Wizards, on the effort by some in New Hampshire to repeal a scholarship program for poor kids titled “HB370: A WAR ON POOR CHILDREN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE by RELIGIOUS BIGOTS?” The article observes that opponents are pointing to the NH State constitution as a reason for repeal, but … Read more

Guest Post – NH State Rep Jane Cormier “Just a FEW of the MANY Taxes We Pay…”

FEDERAL     STATE of NH    
  Income Tax     Property Tax:  
  Corporate Income Tax       Town Property
  Social Security       Town School Education
  Medicaid       State Education
  Capital Gains       County
  Marriage Tax Penalty     Inheritance & Estate  
  Workers Compensation     Business Profit  
        Meal & Rental Tax  
        Electric Consumption Tax  
        Meals & Rental Tax  
        Real Estate Transfer  
        (And there are many more….)  

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Vladimir Lenin

On February 6, the NH House of Representatives voted on CACR 1, a bill which would have allowed citizens to vote on this constitutional amendment. CACR 1 basically declared a 3/5 majority vote in the NH House would be necessary to pass any legislation imposing new or increased taxes or license fees on the citizenry or to authorize the issuance of state bonds. (Might it be, if we shut down the spigot for a while, the “powers that be” may actually have to budget in a fiscally sound manner as do so many of NH citizens? Might the “powers that be” actually need to seek consensus before forcing citizens to pay increased fees or taxes that THEY deem appropriate? Might it be, if we have to have a majority vote before raising taxes or fees, the budgeting may be more transparent and streamlined?) Of course, the answer is yes to all those questions. Unfortunately, many of our state representatives did not agree. CACR 1 was voted Inexpedient to Legislate (which just means “kill the bill”) by a vote of 206 to 149.

Read more

Guest Post by Lee Schalk – “Question 1: Live Free or Tax Harder”

Question 1: Live Free or Tax Harder

By Lee Schalk, National Taxpayers Union State Affairs Manager

Whichever way they identify themselves politically, Granite State citizens who abide by the “Live Free or Die” motto tend to agree that government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. For New Hampshire, one of the State’s trademark features is its lack of a personal state income tax, and Question 1 is an opportunity to enshrine that freedom in the constitution.

Positioned in the Northeast amongst largely liberal leaning, tax-and-spend states, New Hampshire has remained one of the most attractive states for businesses and individuals, thanks to the absence of punitive state income and sales taxes. In fact, New Hampshire was recently ranked seventh in the Tax Foundation’s 2013 State Business Tax Climate report, while the rest of the Northeast failed to crack the top twenty.

For the sake of economic competition, neighbors Vermont (47th), Maine (30th), and Massachusetts (22nd) would be wise to follow New Hampshire’s lead on the state income tax, and get rid of it. Though, it’s likelier they’ll seek more money from taxpayers than reform their governments, and breathe a sigh of relief if Question 1 fails.

For their part, New Hampshirites seem to be divided into three camps on a constitutional income tax ban: for and against, and those who are on the fence because they’re hesitant to alter the State Constitution in any way.

Read more

GrokTV: “After Testimony” interview with – Sue DeLemus, Warren Groen

Both NH State Representatives Sue DeLemus and Warren Groen, testified before the City Council (against the Granite State Future Plan); both agreed to talk with GraniteGrok afterwards about whether or not they had words that didn’t get said, or items they wished to emphasize, like: “These people worship at the alter of Energy Conservation…they want … Read more

Water Sustainability Commission (a subset of the Granite State Future Plan, aka Sustainable Communities Initiative) – their own words. First Rep. Spang in her own words

UPDATE before publishing:  Apparently, Judith has responded to Ken and invoking both International Law and the World Court?  That’s only by email, but THIS I have to see!

*********************

Our mission here at the ‘Grok is to promote and to protect Individual Freedom, Liberty, and Rights.  Period.  Sure, we do other things as well, but that is our main focus and raison d’etre.  I’ve been focusing on that my last few posts as the Federal mandate of the Sustainable Communities Initiative by the Federal Government (HUD / EPA / DOT) has, all of a sudden, climbed its way up the ladder from the muck in which it was derived.  And muck it is, and it has spread.

As Ken Eyring has pointed out, the Granite State Future Plan is being spearheaded by the NH Legislature spawned 10 Regional Planning Commissions with the intent, now funded with Obama money, to override local control here in NH by pushing for new zoning laws (back up with threats of lawsuits).  These are a fourth level of Government, creatures totally created by legislative statute that have no connection to the NH Constitution.  It is staffed by locally appointed members (for instance, my DPW department head is my town’s representative on the Lakes Region Planning Commission) with some paid staff.  They get State funding and also go around grubbing for town taxpayer monies by “billing” on population (e.g., “you have X number of people on town; based on $XX.XX / person, you should give us a total of….”).  Starting off as simply a way to “coordinate” transportation usage, they now do all kinds of things (when did road management make them experts in broadband deployment?) that stray far from their original mission (like all good bureaucracies do!).

One of the things the zoning changes are going to do is push for higher density “center of town” living; whether or not it makes sense, these Federal clowns want “livable centers” where you can walk from your home above places of business, walk to work, and walk to work.  Need to go somewhere else?  IF you take the time, you will find out that you will be “nudged” to use public transportation.  Mass transit isn’t even ‘sustainable’ in cities already – how would that work out here in rural NH – Oh yeah, they have a solution for that, too, but that’s for another post.

And it will be done, bit by bit.  In a later post, I go through and use some of what the Water Sustainability Commission and others have said, in their own words, to “shape the battlefield“.  In the mean time, let’s start with what has already been posted.  Even Judith Spang, in her response to Ken, starts with the individual but then immediately goes to the Town level, as if the individual Right never existed:

1. Groundwater Law in NH is based on Common Law, not statutory law. The common law (dating back to English Common Law) says unequivically that a riparian landowner has the right to “reasonable use” of water flowing under or abutting his land.  “Reasonable use” is a limitation: you cannot take so much water that you are depriving someone else who has riparian rights to the same groundwater or surface water.  Neither you nor a foreign water bottling company who may own the land next to you has the right to take so much water out of your (or their) well that it dries up abuttors’ wells.

2. When the Commission talks about the need for a water policy that respects the inter-municipal nature of water supplies, it is based upon the above legal principle.

And then explicitly denies the Individual their property Rights:

Read more

Are we all about to start losing our private property rights? A parting gift from Gov. Lynch? Guest Post by Ken Eyring

Did you know that there is an executive commission that was set by Gov. Lynch to talk about water?  No big deal you say – yes it is.  Many homes in NH, if not most, depend on the water on their land for wells – or to be more technically correct, under your land.  Common law has been that what resides under your land belongs to you.  Period.  How do you think all those “shale millionaires” are now rich?  Wildcatters and energy companies are paying big bucks to explore and to frack the natural gas that lays under their land – and because they own it.

This “Lynch’s Last Gift” (“LLG”) wishes to administratively change this.  No House debate.  No Senate debate.  Just poorly noticed “listening session” (mostly during the day when ordinary people are working – but certainly attended by those that have NO problem in determining that your water belongs to them, er, all of us – the Collective.  THEY may not own the water, but they, sure as shootin’, are going to be the ones that will make the rules on how you can (or cannot) use that water.

That is under your property.  That you paid for when you bought your property (know it or not).  Ken Eyring has been tracking this situation for a little while and saw that they are looking for comments, so this is what he wrote (emphasis mine):

My Reply to the NH Water Sustainability Commission’s Request For Public Comment

The Water Sustainability Commission is seeking input from the public regarding management of NH’s water over the next 25 years — but unfortunately, they are not consistent with their collection methods.  They have published an online survey using Survey Monkey, and the questions are written in a way that can be easily skewed to support almost any conclusion.  There is no way to ensure the integrity of the results, since anyone can log on and take the survey multiple times.  In addition, from the beginning of July until July 19th, they accepted Public Comments without requiring identification.

Because of the importance of water to so many aspects of our lives, including life itself, my concerns were elevated as it became clear that the commission perceives all NH water as property of the state — disregarding our riparian water rights to the water in the wells on our personal property.

With all that in mind, I wanted to make sure I provided my concerns to the misguided direction the commission has taken since its inception — and to encourage everyone else to do the same by using this email address: watersustainabilitycommission@gmail.com, or via US Mail to the address below.  The deadline to provide feedback is July 31st.

Here is the letter that I sent to them:

Water Sustainability Commission
c/o Synchrony Advisors, LLC
10 Myrtle Street
Exeter, NH 03833

July 18, 2012

Dear Commissioners,

You have asked for public comment regarding “managing the water challenges faced by New Hampshire over the next 25 years.”

I’ll begin by expressing my belief that everything you eventually propose to the Governor should be based upon respect for our Constitutional Rights.  In one of your recent meetings, one of your commissioners raised a concern for Constitutionality… and I was stunned to hear another commissioner dismiss those concerns by stating they will let the courts decide.  That is a reckless disregard of the responsibilities that you have been entrusted with.

Your commissioners have also made statements that disregard our riparian rights to the well water on our personal property.  Some examples include:

Read more

“There may yet come a day when you will have no choice.”

Steve beat me to it in using the Second Amendment support from Ice-T (“The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny.”); it was going to be my lead in for this post I found over at Hot-Air where the money line, THE important line, is the title to this post:

That was the moment when it hit me. The combination of that premise taken by anti-gun groups with the previous historical perspective on our country reminded me of what may be the most important piece of the puzzle. When having this conversation, it’s far too easy to say, “Oh! Of course we don’t want to kill people! So let’s discuss your proposition.”

It’s time to come out with it and speak the plain truth which was born and bred into the very soul of the United States from day one:

There may yet come a day when you will have no choice.

Read more

GrokTV Event-Granite State Institute of Politics Republican Gov. Debate – Questions 9 – 12

And now for the third set of four questions (list of previous questions and their links after the jump) from the Granite State Institute of Politics Republican Gov. Debate that was hosted by John Burt, questions asked by Speaker Bill O’Brien and  Alex Talcott , and answered by the Candidates for the Republican nomination for NH Governor, Ovide Lamontagne and Kevin Smith.

Question 9:

“One of the least known aspects of Obamacare is how it seeks to hijack State finances in order to expand insurance coverage particularly in the area of Medicaid. One area it does this in is doubling income elegibility.  That’s the aspect to bring forward the decision. That’s the aspect and the reason for the Supreme Court decision that it is optional to the States.  Can you tell us whether or not NH should take up that option and expand its population?  As part of your answer, can you tell us where Medicaid is going in NH and how NH is going to finally be able to protect its sovereignty from the Federal Government trying to push us to overspending here in NH?”

Question 10:

Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly