Worth A Constitutional Amendment?

Ever hear of a CACR?   The legislature in Concord are considering a number of bills with this label.  What is a CACR? 

Short for Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution, it is one method of making amendments to our New Hampshire Constitution.  Once a CACR is introduced, it is assigned to a committee.  That committee will hold a public hearing, make a recommendation of Ought to Pass or Inexpedient to Legislate.  The CACR then goes to the floor of the introducing body, and requires a 3/5’s vote of the body membership in each House.  Passing these hurdles the CACR is placed on the ballot for the biennial November election.  In order for the CACR to amend the state constitution 2/3’s of those voting in that election must approve the measure.  The earliest the people of New Hampshire will see a new CACR is November 2012.

So if a body member is to amend a document shouldn’t that body member understand the document?  Especially, when the document is the New Hampshire Constitution and the members are the elected Representatives and Senators who took a vow to uphold and defend this document. 

Additionally these members swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.  The logical conclusion by the ordinary American is that these members have read and understand these founding documents.  After all, in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed:

“Nothing makes me admire the common sense and practical intelligence of the Americans more than the way in which they avoid the countless difficulties arising from their federal constitution. Seldom have I met an ordinary American who could not distinguish with surprising ease between obligations stemming from laws passed by Congress and obligations originating in the laws of his state…”

Why would a legislator in discussion with an “ordinary” New Hampshire citizen be unable to discuss a question on the wording in a CACR?

“I can’t speak specifically to Article 6, as I have not heard that specifically mentioned with respect to this amendment.  I am happy to share your thoughts with those that are working on this language and how it is affected by Article 6.” NH Senator.

Neither Constitution (of the United States or of New Hampshire) is a lengthy or complicated document to read.  In the simplicity of the language is depth of meaning.  This is where definitions and debate are valuable. 

It is not too much to expect elected officials to be able to defend these documents to the ordinary citizen. 

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States limits the power of the federal government to those that are delegated to it or prohibited by it by the people (you!).  This means that unless it is stated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have the power.  The federal government is limited.  Likewise in New Hampshire the state is limited.

For example in education the NH State Constitution Article 6, Part 1 states:

“...the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both”

This section clearly puts the authority over the schools at the local level.  That is the people who are physically closest to the children who will be educated have the choice who will educate the children and set the standards.

One of the CACR’s before the General Court wants to amend the State Constitution with the following wording.

Art. 5-c "In fulfillment of the provisions with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83, the general court shall have authority and full discretion to define reasonable standards [curriculum] for elementary and secondary public education, to establish reasonable standards of accountability [assessments] therefor, and to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity. Further, in the exercise thereof, the general court shall have full discretion to determine the amount of, and methods of raising and distributing, State funding for education."

"In fulfillment of the provisions with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83," doesn’t that say we are attempting to resolve Claremont by attributing this new section as the "fulfillment" of those obligations established in Part II Art. 83 as described in the Claremont decision.  The term "fulfillment" indicates that we are attempting to satisfy, not overturn, the Claremont decision.

Authorizing the general court to have the "full discretion to define reasonable standards" for K-12 is very explicit.  It allows the legislature, not the local communities, to define a statewide curriculum and establish assessments to make sure this  curriculum is being fully implemented.  This section will override Art. 6 Pt 1 where local control is guaranteed to the people on NH within their local communities.  In practice, parents may be able to appeal to a school board for remedy, but they cannot reasonably expect any remedy from a state legislature of 424 members and a governor.

This section will enable the state to standardize our curriculum and enable the state to take federal money to help balance the state budget in exchange for implementing a national curriculum, or even an international curriculum under UNESCO as is being done in Canada and many other countries.  As budget problems loom on the horizon, these solutions may appear more and more expedient in resolving the state budget.

The reason Art. 6 Pt. I was put into our NH Constitution was to prevent Acts of Uniformity like those implemented in England in the 1550's or those now planned by UNESCO.  To control education is to control the people.  Education is the foundation of all state power.  A reread history will confirm how state control over education is critical to all regimes and antithetical to all free peoples.

This CACR will not limit the state government in our lives, but it will enable them to encroach upon our inferred constitutional right to direct the education of our children. 

Now is that so difficult to understand and debate?