The House, Thursday, March 10, 2022

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Mister Speaker, I would like to make a motion to table CACR 32.

Speaker PackardA roll call has been requested. That is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The House will come to order. The motion before us is the tabling motion on CACR 32. The Chair recognizes Rep. Santonastaso for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Matthew Santonastaso (R - Ches 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that it is a longstanding American value that government requires the consent of the governed. And, if I know that no New Hampshire citizen alive today gave their consent to be governed by this federal government. And, if I know this bill will give New Hampshire citizens the historic opportunity to affirm their consent, then would I press the red button so that another motion can be made?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Baldasaro for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the Representative from Weare did a great job of breaking this down on the reasons why this should not go to the voters. And, Mister Speaker, what I know and if you all knew that there are no rules whatsoever what would happen to your retirement, police, military, funding, bases. No rules whatsoever on this and there is nothing in the constitution, then would I speak on behalf of all and let's just vote this tabled and move on? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the tabling motion on CACR 32. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 162 voting Yea, 170 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. We are back to the initial motion of Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tim Smith to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Tim SmithThank you, Mister Speaker. So, this is the first time I have come up to the microphone this session and those of you who have been here for a few terms realize that I am someone that comes up to the microphone a lot. So, I hope that you will appreciate the gravity that it took to get me down here today. Normally I prepare remarks, but not this time. I tried a dozen times to write a speech for this, but I just couldn't do it. It's too personal for too many of us here in the room. It's too personal for me. I'm a direct descendant of Captain John Smith who fought alongside George Washington, that guy, to establish the United States as an independent nation. I'm also a direct descendant of Sgt. Preston Smith, who fought in the U.S. Civil War to keep the United States one nation undivided. A lot of folks in this room have similar stories from their own families, have similar lineages that they look back upon. And, even if you don't, we have a communal heritage here in New Hampshire with a unique place in American history. It was New Hampshire's adoption of the U.S. Constitution. We were the ninth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, which was the vote that made it official and sent it into effect for all of the 13 colonies. We did that. It was this state. It was New Hampshire that created the United States of America. Fast forward a few decades. We had a Civil War as a few breakaway states decided that they would rather go do their own thing and establish a county founded on the principles of chattel slavery. Well, New Hampshire didn't think that was such a good idea so we answered President Lincoln's call, that guy, and we sent troops down to put a stop to that. Folks might not realize this, but when we walk into this building into the front foyer, we come in through a room called the Hall of Flags. The regimental battle standard from the New Hampshire Regiments that liberated the confederate capital city of Richmond, Virginia is downstairs on the first floor of this building. New Hampshire liberated the confederate capital and when Jefferson Davis and his little cohort ran fleeing with their tails between their legs, they were running from New Hampshire soldiers and I am proud of that heritage and legacy that we all carry with us here in this chamber and every day that we carry on as an elected official in this state. All of this, this transcends party. This transcends ideology. We are Americans and we are from New Hampshire. Fast forward a few more decades. When I first got elected in 2012, there were three things I absolutely never thought that I would vote on during my tenure in the New Hampshire House. Articles of impeachment, and we came close a couple of years ago. We had a bill, it was a bill of Address and the first step in an impeachment proceeding, so there was number one. Number two was formal disciplinary actions against Members of the House. Unfortunately we had that a couple of years ago, so that was number two. And here we are with number three of articles of succession. It's almost impossible to even talk about this without breaking down. I apologize for my composure, Mister Speaker. I am close to tears right now because this is such a deeply personal issue. We have this legislation in front of us. It is a bill to destroy the United States. We stand in the shadow, literally, of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington and we are considering legislation to take a star off of that flag. Every single one of us stood for the Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem this morning. Every single one of us took the same oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and we have legislation now seeking to destroy the Constitution of the United States. That is beyond shameful. It is beyond disgraceful and it is a stain on the proud history of this state that we even have to entertain this being introduced through the administrative process, never mind getting far enough along to have a vote on the floor of the House. It was really close to the textbook definition under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It was really close to the definition of advocating overthrow of the U.S. Government when this CACR was introduced. When cosponsors signed on it was really close to seditious conspiracy. A vote for this is really close to the federal definition of treason. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Does the member yield to questions? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes Rep. Santonastaso to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Matthew Santonastaso (R - Ches 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, the United States is not going to outlast the sun. One day it will end. If you declared in 1985 that the Soviet Union would be completely gone in the next decade, you would be considered a crazy person, but in 1991 it was gone. The American religion is the U.S. dollar. Our biggest export is inflation. Few understand the privilege we have had to create money for nothing and export our inflation, living on the backs of the rest of the world. When the world stops subsidizing the dollar, the federal government loses the ability to dictate the state's behavior, unable to bribe them with worthless money and quickly the union will fall apart. This national divorce is going to happen. It's inevitable and we have an opportunity to get ahead of it. This historic motion CACR 32 calls on for a vote by the New Hampshire citizens on the question of state independence. At the committee hearing, many objections were raised. All which were answered by the pro-independent citizens who testified and some which I will address again today. The biggest objection alleged is that this whole effort is treasonous. That any move toward independence by any state is illegal and unconstitutional. If it were unconstitutional for a state to secede, this prohibition would have been included in the original constitution per the 9th and 10th amendments. Since it's not specifically included there, there is no such restriction and that power is left to the states. Additionally, everything states are not permitted to do are listed in Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution. It does not mention anything about separating from the union, therefore it is not prohibited. To those who say that per the Articles of Confederation, this union is perpetual and that this concept was adopted by the U.S. Constitution, we ask has there ever been in history a union that was undissolvable? The federal government often supports independence movements in other nations. Is the U.S. the only perpetual nation in the history of the world? Is there truly nothing the federal government could do that would allow a state to declare independence? Even if this move towards independence is illegal or treasonous, which I do not believe it to be, it would be no more so than the one in 1776, which is celebrated by everybody in this body. To quote from the Declaration of Independence, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal stations to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." To assert that those who wrote this document went on to create a government that contradicts the principles on which it was founded is ludicrous and absurd. Returning to the alleged violation of the constitution, I'm surprised that some are troubled by violations of the U.S. Constitution. It is not even possible to list all the violations of the other party of this document, making this contract void in the perspective of any contract law that has even existed. There is no evidence that the federal government is bound by the constitution. Does our constitution allow an intelligence community, which to quote the current Majority Leader, "Has six ways from Sunday of getting back at you, if you cross him," that worked so hard to undermine the 45th President of this country and to assure the election of our current President? Those who oppose this idea because in so many words the Civil War settled that issue, we must assume that had the colonists lost the war in the 1700's that their words would not have been universally and everlasting true, that their veracity depended on winning a war. Do we believe that other conquering nations have a right to forcibly rule over the conquered because might makes right? For lack of power, do we surrender the principle of self-determination for a state any more or less than the individual? Some oppose this because governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. We are at a point beyond this. Does anyone believe that the current powers of the federal government over every aspect of our lives from toilets to light bulbs, from taxation to vaccine mandates, from bankrupt social security to our $30 trillion deficit, the war on drugs, border patrols within 100 miles of national borders, how children are taught in our schools and arbitrary no fly lists, are just light and transient causes? A federal government with approximately 400 agencies and more laws, federal crimes and rules than anyone in the country is even aware of? A federal government that has sent our sons and daughters to foreign countries and involved them in conflicts, foreign entanglements, often leading to their deaths? For those who label this effort unamerican, referring back to the founding Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." How can one possible argue that the words of the Declaration of Independence were unamerican? For concerns such as what is the plan or how we will survive, there are plenty of examples of smaller countries in the world that function independently and even thrive, but also it would be absurd to just tell a battered wife that she can't divorce until she has a plan. This is not a fringe idea. Hashtag national divorce trends on the Internet. There is a similar movement in California which will flourish again when Republicans take the U.S. Congress later this year. There is an independence movement in Texas and several movements to move borders and cities as in Atlanta or the states in the Greater Idaho movement. Hollywood star Ron Perlman recently stated, "It's time that every state that would elect Republicans to represent them and all the rest of us separate. You don't want to live in my world and I certainly don't want to live in yours." Sarah Silverman has endorsed national divorce. Ted Cruz and Congressmen Massie and Greene have spoken in support of a national divorce. Media personalities including Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Tim Pool and others have spoken in support of splitting up the union before it's too late. This bill has no one in the chamber voting directly on succession. It asks them only to allow those we purport to represent to make their own decisions. If our state was currently independent, would we choose to join the union in the situation that it's in? The answer is obviously no, so we should allow our citizens the opportunity to determine their own future. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. No emotion is to be shown from the gallery or we will have it cleared. Does the member yield to questions? Rep. Abramson.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker and I thank the member for taking my question. Do you believe that the people of the Ukraine have the right to resist Soviet military aggression?

Speaker PackardThis is not anything to do with the bill. So, if you are going to ask a question, ask about the bill itself.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Okay, can I respond to a remark that was made by a previous speaker?

Speaker PackardNo, that's not. You are here to ask a question.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Can I ask a would you believe? It's on topic. It's definitely on topic.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Would you believe that my grandmother who just passed away at the age of 99 would tell us stories about the Civil War and that we had members of our family on my grandmother's side who fought in the Civil War and that they risked their lives and some of them died to end slavery, not to subject us to socialist tyranny from a top-down federal government?

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to further questions? The member does not yield.

Rep. Matthew Santonastaso (R - Ches 18)Mister Speaker, can I ask for a roll call vote?

Speaker PackardRoll call has been requested. You have already asked. I didn't ask for a second yet, but I guess that is a second. We have one more speaker so members take your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Deshaies to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Brodie Deshaies (R - Carr 6)Thank you for indulging me, Mister Speaker, and thank you to the Members of the House for listening. I'll be brief. I'll be succinct. First let me say I'm amazed that I must speak as to why this is a bad idea, not only logistically, but constitutionally. Why? This is impossible. Why it's improbable and why it's a violation of our oath to the U.S. Constitution and to the State of New Hampshire's Constitution, right? I do not legislate based on hashtags. I do not think we should either just because something is reportedly trending, which I'm not on Twitter so I've never seen it, right? But let's be honest and be frank about what this is right now. This is a historic moment. Not just in the State of New Hampshire, but it's a historic moment in America. This is the first time a legislative body has debated and will vote upon a binding, binding succession. Other succession movements that we've talked about, many of those are nonbinding. They never get actual votes and debate on the floor. This is binding. It will be the first one debated since prior to the Civil War. That's a historic moment. It's also concerning that we are joining a very bad group of states that tried to overthrow the U.S. Constitution, right? They tried to overthrow a constitutionally elected and a constitutionally instituted government. I do not think this body should join such a group of states. We should not be joining those former Confederate States of America who were deemed treasonous, right? I see right over my right-hand shoulder here the man who beat back those who challenged our constitution and defended it, right? The most U.S. service members who have died in any war was the Civil War. This body should not be proposing legislation that can throw us into the maelstrom of war, right? Into the jaws of certain defeat. It's a terrible thing to do to our constituents. It's a terrible thing to do to Granite Staters. So, let's also be clear about a number of other things when we discuss the constitution because I'm looking at this strictly from a constitutional issue, right? The federal government is the only legitimate power to admit new states and extend or attract territorial boundaries. This is quite clear in Article IV, Section III of our state constitution. Our state has never within its constitution and never has the federal government suggested that states can decide that they can leave or to join the government unless the federal government allows so, right? There is no process for leaving this union, right? The union, as mentioned in Texas vs. White in 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase explained in his majority decision, a 9-0 decision, a New Hampshire native in fact, Salmon P. Chase was. But he explained that the union began during the Revolutionary War amongst the colonies and in his decision, he writes, "We confirmed and strengthened and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the union was solemnly declared to be perpetual." Right? The Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union. That's the name of the entire document. Our country was founded originally by that document. We then, Chief Justice Chase then explained that the current constitution was ordained to form a more perfect union, "Which extended to convey the idea of indissoluble unity, therefore, the union can never be dissolved." Anyone who thinks and purports that they can dissolve the union single handedly is wrong, right? Let's also discuss the idea that this is a referendum. This is no mere referendum. New Hampshire has no referendum. We have no state statute, nothing in our state constitution that suggests that we have a referendum, right? We have a constitutional process for amending the constitution. I look at it this way. This is a race, right? If you run a 5K, you go each kilometer, right? Kilometer one was the committee, which by the way rejected this 21-0, recognizing it was unconstitutional and unamerican, right? Step two is we go to the House floor and we vote on it, right? Every step along the way that you continue to complete this 5K is aiding and abetting and making this policy come to fruition, right? By bringing this to the people, we are aiding and abetting in the process of undermining the U.S. Constitution and violating our oaths of office, right? And I could go on regarding the 14th Amendment and a myriad of, you know, this open question of what is rebellion, which is not defined in the U.S. Constitution, which quite frankly after this vote and now that it's roll called, there is a question of what do we do and how do we enforce the 14th Amendment, which we took an oath to the constitution of? I hope that we don't have to be answering that question on the House floor in the future. I hope that everyone says no to this constitutional amendment because I would prefer not to see the partisan politics of trying to remove members of this House for arguably maybe violating their constitutional oath, right? It's deeply concerning to me. So, I hope that we can reject this. I hope we can stick with constitutional government. I hope that we can uphold the U. S. Constitution. I hope that we can continue to uphold the New Hampshire State Constitution. We should support the union today, the union tomorrow and the union forever. Thank you.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? Member yields. Rep. Klein-Knight, you may inquire.

Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D - Hills 11)Thank you so much, Representative, for taking my question. Have any of your colleagues decided on who is going to run for President of New Hampshire?

Speaker PackardThat is not an appropriate question. We've had a request for a roll call. Now I'm going to ask if that is sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The House will come to order. The question before us is the motion of ITL on CACR 32. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Sylvia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that New Hampshire did not delegate to the United States the power to prevent peaceful separation and that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Mister Speaker, if I know that rebellion an insurrection are violent actions that stand in sharp contrast to the deliberative, thoughtful and cordial process brought by sponsors and supporters of this amendment. And, Mister Speaker, if I know no member of this body should be threatened with retribution for their vote here today and we should all take to heart the words of Article 30 of our constitution, the freedom of deliberation, speech and debate in either House of this legislature is so essential to the rights of the people that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, prosecution in any other court or place whatsoever. And, Mister Speaker, finally, if I know that this amendment reinforces Article 7 of our constitution, which declared New Hampshire to be forever a free, sovereign and independent state, then, Mister Speaker, would I press the red button to stop the abuse of distant, illegitimate powers? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Baldasaro for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, as I flown back into New Hampshire a couple nights ago from Florida, I recognize there is no rebellion. And, Mister Speaker, if I know when I walk up to the State House and I see General Stark out there, he's rolling over in his grave to see what is going on here today. And, Mister Speaker, if you believe as I do this move today is unconstitutional. It is an embarrassment for me to even get up here. It is a 21-0 vote in my committee and that we as Americans should stand tall and especially for those that shed blood and made the ultimate sacrifice, Mister Speaker. And, Mister Speaker, if they believe as I do then vote green and let's move on and get this done? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe House will come to order. The motion before us is the ITL motion on CACR 32. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 323 voting Yea, 13 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Michael Edgar (D - Rock 21)Mister Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of HB 1456. This concerns the Hampton Marine Memorial. The Hampton Marine Memorial is for those service members and also for those merchant marine service members who either were lost at sea and their bodies weren't found or for those who were buried at sea. This bill increases the eligibility for inclusion on the monument. That would actually include now, according to the bill, we would include Desert Storm, Desert Shield and also the War on Terrorism, following the 9/11 attack. This will allow us to put on the memorial Marine Corps Corporal Johnathan Currier, who was lost at sea off of the Philippines in 2018. It would also allow us to put on Marine Corps Captain Gary Dillon. He was from Concord, who was actually lost at sea after a midair collision of his helicopter during a night training just before Desert Storm. He was lost in the Arabian Sea. So, I guess what I want to add is that I knew Johnathan very well. He was a fine young man. Thank you for considering the bill.