|
The public hearing before the Committee on State and Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs was on February 5. Suddenly the air was buzzing. About 12 other States had introduced similar legislation. The hearing room was packed with supporters. In the hallway, my fellow Representatives were asking why they hadn’t known about this Resolution. The testimony during the hearing was unanimously in favor of the Resolution.
Over the next week, we learned that the Democrats on the Committee (the majority party) were talking about supporting the HCR6. One of the Democrats let us know that he would be voting against the HCR6 simply because he thought that the Democrat caucus talking about it on-line violated the rules regarding public meetings. During Session on February 11, I urged him to vote on the merits of the Resolution and not on the behavior of his fellow members. One of my Democrat friends, a libertarian asked me, “Why now?” implying that it was in response to the election of President Obama. I explained to him that I had concieved the Resolution before we ever knew who the candidates were, and that I had cosponsored legislation against provisions of the Patriot Act in 2003. The Resolution was independent of the election results.
The Executive Session was on February 12. By that time the number of States with similar resolutions had risen to 20. We walked in to the Executive Session expecting a unanimous passage. The Executive Session opened on HCR6, and before anyone could speak, and to everyone’s astonishment, the Vice Chairman made a motion of Inexpedient-to-Legislate. A brief discussion of the bill was held, and I am told that the Speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, made a cameo appearance at the back of the room through the Committee office door, to see that all was going as planned. The Committee voted 11 to 7 in support of the Inexpedient-to-Legislate, Rep. Roberts (d) joined the Republicans.
I then found myself on a wave of national visibility. On February, 15, I was on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show. A couple of days later, I was on Fox and Friends in the morning. I was on radio shows and featured in newspaper articles from coast to coast. It was an incredible experience. During the next two weeks I had legislators from across the country calling me for advice on how to write their resolutions and asking to use parts of mine in theirs.
House Concurrent Resolution 6 came to the floor on March 4, and by that time the number of similar resolutions had swelled to about 28. A rally in support of HCR 6 was held on the State House steps. It drew an attendance of about 350, in 10°F weather, on a Wednesday. The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted HCR6 Inexpedient to Legislate. A spontaneous outburst erupted in the Gallery of the House of Representatives which concluded with a group reciting the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part the First, Article 10, the obligation of revolution. A year later, this outburst would be used by the Democrats to justify banning firearms from the State House.
The next day, March 5, 2009, a Resolution based in part on HCR6 passed the House of Representatives of South Carolina. The sentiments expressed in HCR6 continued to spread across the United States. Bernie Quigley, The Hill, credited HCR6 with helping to inspire the Tea Party.
The next term, with Republicans in firm control of both Houses, I submitted a more modern Sovereignty Resolution, HCR19, affirming States' powers based on the Constitution for the United States and the Constitution of New Hampshire. House Concurrent Resolution 19, is written in a more modern style, closely connecting the statements and the resolutions, the wherefores and the therefores. It also added more in regard to amendments to the Constitution for the United States and supreme court opinions. House Concurrent Resolution 19 passed the House of Representatives 242 to 109, but it died on the table in the House of the Senate. The following year I introduced the resolution as a House Resolution, HR25, which of course passed, but did not have to suffer the Senate.
Over the past four years I have had the opportunity to speak on States’ Powers a fair amount. During that experience I have found that true Americans have a natural understanding that States have powers, and that government is supposed to be subject to the people. However, few can articulate any justification other than the preamble to the Constitution for the United States, “We the people ... .” In fact, the principles of States’ Powers, and the power of the people are far broader and deeper than that simple declaration. They grow out of the writings of people like John Locke, Edmund Burke, Montesque and de Vattel. They are articulated in the Constitutions of the original States. They are what makes America, America, and different from any other government in the world.
States Have Powers is an expository on HCR19/HR25. The Chapter titles are literally taken out of the text of the Resolution. The intent is to impart to the reader a more complete understanding of American government and the purpose and function of their States. I have taken care to include quotes from original documents in context so that the reader can more fully comprehend the intent of the writer.
"...[I]ts [the federal government's] schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people."
James Madison
“...[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
