An amendment to the New Hampshire constitution is currently being considered (Feb. 2018). CACR 19 titled ‘Right of Local Community Self-Government’ is offered as a local control amendment. Let’s take a look at this thing.
You will notice that this is composed of two sentences, and the first one is a whooper:
[Art.] 40. [Right of Local Community Self-Government.] All government of right originates from the people, is founded in their consent, and instituted for the general good; the people have the right and the duty to reform governments when those governments manifestly endanger public liberty; and sustainable environmental and economic development can be achieved only when the people affected by governing decisions are the ones who make them; therefore, the people of New Hampshire have an inherent and inalienable right of local, community self-government in each county, municipality, city, and town to enact local laws that protect health, safety, and welfare by recognizing or establishing rights of natural persons, their local communities, and nature; and by securing those rights using prohibitions and other means deemed necessary by the community, including measures to establish, define, alter, or eliminate competing rights, powers, privileges, immunities, or duties of corporations and other business entities operating, or seeking to operate, in the community.
In the beginning, “All government of right originates from the people” can be reworded to, ‘a just body politic must come from the people who create it.’ I think we are doing well so far.
Then, “is founded in their consent” inserts the ‘social contract.’ Let’s just assume for now that ‘their consent’ means everybody agrees to this ‘government of right’, but stipulate that all measures produced by this just government will require 100% agreement of the body politic.
Moving on, “and instituted for the general good“, as we are assuming unanimous agreement, everyone agrees that any rule adopted will help most people and harm none. Who would agree to something that would cause harm to themselves?
On to the next clause we have “the people have the right and the duty to reform governments when those governments manifestly endanger public liberty.” All of a sudden we have a “duty” to reform multiple “governments.” Where did these other governments come from and why is it your responsibility to fix them? ‘Huston, we have a problem!’ If we are living by the just government of our first clause then one person removing their consent is all that is needed for it to be ‘reformed’. Reformed, hmm, must we reform? Perhaps we would be better off without.
Despite the fatal flaws we’ve already encountered, let’s press on. “and sustainable environmental and economic development can be achieved only when the people affected by governing decisions are the ones who make them“, this is a statement which presents itself as a fact, but in reality can only stand as an opinion. A constitution of a just government is no place to be inserting opinions; only those who agree with the opinion could possibly be a party to such a body politic. Perhaps this is where those other governments will be created, in opposition to a government based in the stated opinion previously expressed.
The flaws of the opening statements preclude an sensible reading of the conclusion; “therefore, the people of New Hampshire have an inherent and inalienable right of local, community self-government in each county, municipality, city, and town to enact local laws that protect health, safety, and welfare by recognizing or establishing rights of natural persons, their local communities, and nature.” This being a proposed amendment to the New Hampshire constitution which would be voted upon by only those whom qualify as voters in the state, it would fail to meet its first statement regarding ‘All government of right.’
More absurdity is found in the notion of “establishing rights of natural persons.” If we believe that people have the right to create government and without people there can be no government, how is it possible for government to establish rights for its own creator. One would need to use a bit of circular logic to work that out.
Let’s note that this ‘just government’ is also “establishing rights of”… “their local communities, and nature.” We might need to explore what this community is and how it expresses its government granted rights. How ‘nature’ lets us know about its rights is beyond comprehension.
We’ve come this far, and the truth is located near the end. “and by securing those rights using prohibitions and other means deemed necessary by the community, including measures to establish, define, alter, or eliminate competing rights, powers, privileges, immunities, or duties of corporations and other business entities operating, or seeking to operate, in the community.” Just so you don’t miss it, “using prohibitions and other means deemed necessary by the community” is where they pull out the guns and tell “corporations and other business entities” how things are going to be run in the ‘community.’
Finally we come to the second sentence which loops its way around to the mouth of the snake and down its own throat:
Local laws adopted pursuant to this article shall not weaken existing protections for, or constrict the fundamental rights of, natural persons, or their local communities, or nature, as those protections and rights are secured by local, state, federal, or international law.
While this amendment would serve as the basis of a good episode of The Twilight Zone, it is only suitable for an ITL (inexpedient to legislate) in the house.
