by Michael Boldin

In New Hampshire, State Representative Dan Itse has introduced House Bill 1343 (HB1343), which, if passed, would create “a joint committee of the legislature to consider the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules by the government of the United States including the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and to consider the actions necessary to protect the sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire.”

Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, HB1343 is legally-binding legislation.

Calling on Thomas Jefferson and the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, the bill reaffirms the principle that it was “We the People” of the several states that created the federal government, and not the other way around. Thus, it’s the people of each state, and not the federal government, that retains sovereignty, which is defined as “final authority” in the American System.

The legislation states:

“the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, all remaining powers for their own self-government.”

Most importantly, it includes the essential declaration that government is strictly limited to those powers which have been delegated to it in the Constitution – and nothing more:

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

The bill, if passed, would create a committee that would not only review the Constitutionality of Laws, Acts and Regulations emanating from Washington D.C., but would also recommend and propose legislation to protect the citizens of New Hampshire from any federal overreach:

I. There is hereby established a joint committee on the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules of the government of the United States. This joint committee of the legislature shall consider the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules by the government of the United States including the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, and consider the actions necessary to protect the sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire and the liberty of its citizens by restraining the government of the United States to its constitutional limits.

II. The joint committee shall:

(c) When necessary propose legislation to prohibit, and if necessary, punish the enforcement of unconstitutional acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules of the government of the United States.

LIMITED: THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Federal violations of the Constitution goes beyond anything the founders and ratifiers would have accepted.

James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

NULLIFICATION AND INTERPOSITION

The principles behind such legislation are nullification and interposition, which garnered first serious attention with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law.

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

HB1343 clearly includes interposition in its text:

XXIII. Therefore the Legislatures and Legislators of the several States have the right and duty to consider the constitutionality of any legislative act or order promlugated by the government of the United States of America; and to protect their governments, inhabitants, and residents and instruments created under their authority by prohibiting, and if necessary punishing the enforcement of any Acts by the Congress of the United States of America, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a prohibition or punishment include, but are not limited to:

(a) Requiring the States to create a national identification card system.

(b) Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(c) Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(d) Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

(e) Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

The Bill currently has three co-sponsors and has been referred to the Committee of State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s tracking page for 10th Amendment Bills.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s tracking page for 10th Amendment Resolutions.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law or regulation, it is passing legally-binding legislation that makes the federal act in question void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Current nullification efforts around the U.S. have states passing laws that effectively defy federal laws and regulations on firearms, marijuana, identification cards and more. In 2010, we expect to see similar legislation in response to Health Care, No Child Left Behind, Federalization of the Guard and more.

The most asked question is – once such a law is passed, what next?

STANDING BETWEEN

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

It is on these principles that New Hampshire State Representatives Itse, Ingbretson, Dumaine, Comerford, and Villeneuve have raised the bar for the 10th Amendment Movement with their introduction of House Bill 1648 (h/t Chris Lawless)

Any act, order, law, statute, regulation or rule restricting the ability of New Hampshire citizens to contract with healthcare professionals or facilities for the provision healthcare services or to contract with corporations providing health insurance authorized by the State of New Hampshire for health insurance is unconstitutional, void and of no force. Any attempt to enforce such a law is an affront to the Sovereignty of the States and their Citizens.

PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL AGENTS

Not only does the bill make restrictions of health care choices unconstitutional, it expressly prohibits interference in these choices by federal agents and requires state agencies to interpose as a protection. From the text of the legislation:

Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, or withholds medical services from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire or withholds medicines or medical treatment from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, voids or penalties for a contract between a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire and a health insurance provider authorized to business in New Hampshire based upon a law, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

WEED: A LESSON FOR RESISTANCE

While many people are calling on State AG’s to sue the federal government over the Constitutionality of national health care, many others take the position that going to federal courts in the hope that they’ll limit the power of the federal government is likely a lost cause.

But for those that pursue such court action, the real question remains – If the “Supremes” rule against the Constitution as they have so many times before, will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?

The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.

With legislation giving support to their cause by requiring state interposition in their defense, will health freedom activists have the same courage? Only time will tell.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) – New Hampshire on Wednesday became the sixth U.S. state to authorize gay marriage, deepening a New England niche for same-sex weddings and the spending that comes with them.

New Hampshire’s Democratic-controlled House of Representatives endorsed gay marriage in a 198-176 vote, hours after the state Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines, making the state the fourth this year to back gay marriage in the United States.

Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, signed the bill, which goes into effect on January 1.

“Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect, under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said in a statement.

The law also recognizes out-of-state gay marriages and civil unions, which are legal in just a handful of U.S. states including New Hampshire. Same-sex couples who have civil unions in New Hampshire will automatically be married January 1, 2011.

Last month, the New Hampshire House rejected a similar bill. But Senate and House members met last week to approve new language giving clergy and religious institutions opposed to gay marriage greater protections, including the legal right to decline to marry same-sex couples.

Opponents, mostly religious conservatives, see gay marriage as a threat to the “traditional family” that is ordained by God and the foundation of civilization. Supporters often compare it to the path blazed by the civil rights movement.

PROTECTING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

New Hampshire’s bill says religious organizations, associations or societies will have “exclusive control” over their religious “doctrines, teachings and beliefs”.

Organizations affiliated with religious groups that operate for charitable or educational purposes can deny marriage services to gay individuals, it adds.

“The (changes) strike the appropriate balance between two important values we believe New Hampshire residents support: equal rights for all and the rights to religious freedom,” said state Senator Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat.

Senate Republicans said the amendment did little to change a bill they oppose. Republican state Senator Sheila Roberge said Democrats should support Republican calls for a referendum so voters can decide the issue.

Only a few countries, mostly European nations, allow gay marriage. Forty-two U.S. states explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments.

Last week, California’s supreme court backed a ban on gay marriage by upholding a voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In stark contrast, gay-marriage laws are expanding swiftly on the East Coast, especially in New England where Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay people to marry five years ago.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE