This year’s sold-out Liberty Forum featured an excellent and well-attended panel on New Hampshire secession featuring Alu Axelman of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, Steven Axelman of YES California, and Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Moderated by Carla Gericke of the Free State Project, it was an entertaining and enlightening panel, featuring plenty of questions from the audience. Don’t miss it:
Statists on social media are freaking out over the thirteen heroic state representatives who voted in favor of the historic NH Exit constitutional amendment, CACR 32, which would have simply placed the question of peaceful independence from the United States federal gang on the ballot.
Of course, the lying pro-Empire reps and mainstream media are acting like CACR 32’s vote was a vote on secession, when it was just a vote to let the people of NH vote on the question. That means the 323 reps who voted it down are telling the people of New Hampshire that, as democrat representative Tim Egan admitted in an email, “legislators can absolutely not trust voters with this decision”.
Sadly, there were a bunch of so-called “liberty reps” who had nothing but excuses for why they didn’t support CACR 32. Nonetheless, bill sponsors Mike Sylvia and Matt Santonastaso spoke in favor of freedom from the tyranny of the evil federal goons, as you can see in the full video from the house floor yesterday:
Here are some of the hysterical reactions by the Empire Loyalists on Twitter. Click the names above the images to find the actual post on their profiles:
On January 27, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Chief Judge Jeffrey Howard, ruled in “US Dep’t of Justice v. Jonas, No. 19-1243,” that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) can “legally” access New Hampshire’s prescription drug database via an administrative subpoena, not a warrant. This is despite New Hampshire and United States laws to the contrary.
While 48 states have submitted to maintaining a networked prescription database (Prescription Drug Monitoring Program / PDMP), most people would argue that their personal medical and prescription records are protected by the 4th amendment (“no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”) Personal healthcare and medical information is generally protected under doctor-patient confidentiality laws and is regarded as almost sacrosanct in the healthcare world (think HIPAA.) In this case, confidentiality was further supported by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.
Overwhelming Support From the Liberty Community
Michelle Ricco Jonas, manager of the New Hampshire PDMP in 2018, refused the DEA’s request to fork over 2.5 years’ worth of prescription data of a “person of interest.” After being subpoenaed she argued that the records belong to the state, not an individual person. Since March 12, 2019, when the notice of appeal was docketed, Michelle Jonas and New Hampshire state received an outpouring of support from the ACLU of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island – in other words, all the districts represented by the 1st Circuit Court.
Over the past two grueling years of appeal, the ACLU supported Jonas, and questioned whether issuing a subpoena to a state employee is within the bounds of the district court. They argued that medical records, for all intents and purposes, are considered private information. While the DEA has the ability to subpoena an individual, the ACLU asked if that gave them the right to subpoena a representative, or employee, of the state. They also argued that the 4th Amendment requires law enforcement “to obtain a warrant based on probable cause only to secure records over which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The ACLU argued that medical records warrant an expectation of privacy.
The prescription records at issue in this case reveal intimate, private, and potentially stigmatizing details about patients’ health, including details of those patients’ underlying medical conditions. For that reason, as with other medical records, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.” – Summary of Argument, US Dep’t of Justice v. Jonas, No. 19-1243
So What Was the Loophole?
Representative Brodie Deshaies from Wolfeboro, New Hampshire testified in front of the State-Federal Relations and Veteran Affairs Committee on January 20, 2022 concerning CACR 32. The legislation seeks to let the people of New Hampshire vote to amend the Constitution and become an independent nation, breaking ties with DC. He was the legislator asked by the committee chairman to do the bulk of the research before the hearing.
Looking closely at all the claims Deshaies made about the legality of this bill and the implications concerning lawmakers voting to recommend that the House pass it, it is hard to decide if he is ignorant and easily swayed by empire-loving “constitutional scholars” from DC or if he gave a speech full of lies to sway the vote. He used fear-mongering language directed at the committee, implying that they may be charged by Washington DC if they vote ‘Ought To Pass’ and supported the bill through the legal process. This article is a close-up look at his claims and will look at all the material he references to see if he is really making a constitutional argument against CACR 32.
Deshaies starts off with an acknowledgment of how the public perceives him. “There are some people who are pretty upset with me in the room,” he says. This is already very indicative of his character. He sent Elliot “Alu” Axelman (the editor-in-chief of LibertyBlock.com and the author of multiple books on secession) an email full of misinterpretations of the US and New Hampshire Constitutions a few weeks ago. When Alxelman politely asked if he wished to engage in a public debate on the topic, Deshaies cowered and declined. Without the opportunity to debate Deshaies, and with no legislator agreeing to debate him, Alu published his rebuttal to Deshaies’ anti-independence letter on his website. The article destroys the few arguments that the anti-freedom legislator sought to make in his letter. Instead, Deshaies went on to publish the exact same letter in an op-ed article on NHJournal.com. So, now we know he knows how people feel about his twisting of the facts, but he just goes on to ignore the people and doubles down on his way of thinking. We see from this very first sentence that he isn’t the sort of person who feels he should be in office doing what the people of New Hampshire want. He feels he’s in office to rule over the citizens of New Hampshire with an iron fist.
He goes on to say that after speaking to many “constitutional scholars” such as David Williams, author of “The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment”, that he believes this committee was engaged in a “constitutional process” by voting Ought to Pass or Inexpedient to Legislate. Which means every vote cast is “aiding in the constitutional process,” and “approving it at each time along the way”.
Deshaies claims, “Every vote cast has a constitutional ramification judging by amendment fourteen of the US Constitution, section three. Some scholars would argue that this is rebelling, even if it’s peaceful. This very well could be an argument where voting for this, aiding and abetting in that process could very well be unconstitutional.”
So, there it is, folks. Deshaies spoke to a man who wrote a book arguing that the second amendment doesn’t really give all Americans the right to bear arms for advice on what the Constitution says. Then, he came up with a clever way to subtly scare the other members of the committee out of voting Ought to Pass on this bill. He used a mildly veiled threat of ‘insurrection’ and ‘rebellion’ to convince everyone on the committee to vote 21-0 against recommending the bill to be passed. Even the two committee members who told Axelman that they would support the legislation ultimately caved to the fear and voted to kill it. (more…)
It was standing-room-only this Thursday afternoon as the state house Federal Relations committee held a historic hearing on CACR 32, likely the first-ever proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully declare independence from the United States. Freedom-loving activists packed the large-sized room, nearly forcing the hearing into Rep’s Hall, which can hold four hundred. Many people testified in favor of the bill and with the exception of a few Empire Loyalist state reps who spoke against it, everyone else who spoke was in favor of it, except for one guy. I was able to get independent video of the entire three-hour hearing as well as the press conference prior to it. Thank you to everyone who turned out.
Here’s the full hearing video:
Here’s the press conference prior to the hearing:
Unfortunately, the committee voted 21-0 against the proposed amendment. NHexit.US has the full story and video of the committee’s discussion and vote.
As reported today by the NH Exit blog, the next step is the bill will go before a state house committee for public hearing. In a historic first for all 50 states, people of New Hampshire will have a chance to speak to the state reps about secession – whether for or against.
If passed without amendment by 60% of the NH House and Senate, CACR 32 will appear on the ballot with the following wording:
Are you in favor of amending the first part of the constitution by inserting after article 7 a new article to read as follows:
[Art.] 7-a. [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.
To pass, it must receive at least 2/3rds of the vote. Visit the NHexit.US post for the full story.