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?

Assisted Suicide - - -A rose by any other name

Recently, the House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing for HB 513 relative to end of life aid in dying for certain persons suffering from a terminal disease. Aid in dying is another name for assisted suicide is another name for death with dignity and so the rhetoric goes.  As I read through the articles and testimony presented . . .  elder abuse, death panels, terminal, self-administered . . . were words with meaning, but do these words have hidden meanings?

Where did this concept of “physician assisted suicide” originate?  Back in 1980 following the publication of “Jean’s Way,” in which Derek Humphry relates his story of helping his “terminally ill” wife kill herself in 1975.  Red flags! Red flags! 

What happened the principles in the Declaration of Independence?  You know where it says “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator to certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, . . .”  Suicide was murder albeit self-murder.  People who attempted to kill themselves were considered ill and put under medical care.  And yet, here is a man who admittedly assisted his wife in killing herself.

Was she really given a “terminally ill” prognosis?  Did Mr. Humphry have other reasons to help his wife murder herself?  Did he stand to benefit monetarily upon her passing?  Was he abusing her is some manner?  Isn’t he at minimum an accomplice to murder?

Be that as it may, in 1980, Derek Humphry began selling Americans on the idea that life had no value and that individuals who could be convinced that life was not worth living, should be allowed to terminate their lives with the help of a physician or other person as he founded the Hemlock Society.

Over the years, the names have changed to End of Life Choices, to Caring Friends until today where they are known as Compassion Choices.  I wonder whose “choices” they reference.

Reading about Oregon and Washington, the only two states that currently have “physician assisted suicide” laws, causes one to shake the head.  How is “terminal” defined?   In HB 513 it refers to a prognosis of less than six months until death.  What if the doctor is wrong?  As in the case of Jeanette Hall.  She states:

“I wanted to do our [assisted suicide] law and I wanted my doctor to help me.   Instead, he encouraged me not to give up . . .   I had both chemotherapy and radiation . . .

“It is now nearly 10 years later.  If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.”

Or what about Barbara Wagner, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer.  Her doctor offered her hope in a new chemotherapy drug, Tarceva.  The Oregon Health Plan denied her request for coverage, but instead offered her comfort care and physician aid in dying, aka assisted suicide.

Barbara told them, “Who do you guys think you are?  You know, to say that you’ll pay for my dying, but you won’t pay to help me possibly live longer.”

According to Dr. William Toffler, a critic of assisted suicide, the state has a financial interest in offering death instead of life.  The Chemotherapy drug such as Tarceva costs $4,000 per month while drugs to administer death cost less than $100.

Maryanne Clayton was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer and given two to four months to live.  She was eligible for Washington States “Death with Dignity” law.  However, Maryanne chose to participate in a clinical trial with a new drug called Pemetrexate.  That was four years ago.

Other areas of concern with this bill include the administration.  There is no provision in this bill to allow the patient to opt out or rescind their request for a lethal dose.  Once the medication is prescribe there is no supervision provided or required.  Hence the so called “patient choice” is not really available and can be abused.   Some third party could administer the dosage to the unaware patient or it could be administered through an IV.  In fact, “patient control” is a misnomer.  The claim that they are in control because they are being allowed to “self administer” is mere word play.  “Self administer” is defined as the patient’s act of ingesting the medication. . .

Someone else who places the lethal dose in the patient’s mouth qualifies as “self administration.”   Someone else placing the lethal dose in a feeding tube or IV nutrition bag qualifies as ingesting or absorbing and thus is “self administered.”

Ultimately, a rose by any other name. . . Physician assisted suicide or death with dignity or aid in dying are all other names for legalized murder.

New Hampshire would benefit the most IF the Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives vote to kill HB 513.

Is It About Our Children?

Oft times over the years, teachers have expressed that they are professionals.  (By the way, I was a teacher.  I taught at all levels from pre-school through college, in public and private schools.)  Over the years teachers have told parents that they are interested in doing what is best for our children.  They are the trained professionals.

Please know that I know and am aware that there are many honest, hard working, quality teachers who want to do what is best for our children.  I am not talking about these professionals who really make a difference in the lives of their students.

However, there are those who are looking for the paycheck and the summer vacations.  And then there is my next observation professionals do not go on strike when they encounter barricades in agreements.  They do not need to join unions.

On the other hand, the teachers in this video may have told you their primary focus is in the best interests of your child, the speaker says otherwise.  Is it really about our children?

What do you think about the actions of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker?

Civility or Censorship?

In the coverage of the Arizona tragedy where six Americans lost their lives at the act of one individual, "civility" and a call to limit our rhetoric has dominated.  But is it really a call for “civility” or a disguised move towards “censorship?”  

We the people prosper when there is an open exchange of ideas.  This is what we the First Amendment of our Constitution protects...our right to free speech.

This is the beauty of America.  Our ability to discuss openly and freely on any subject, even when we view the words, tone and discourse as inflammatory, disrespectful or mean-spirited.  Take for example the desecration of our symbol of liberty, the American Flag by groups or individuals.  We who believe in freedom will defend the right of those who take such actions the ability to express themselves as long as there is not harm to life, liberty or property.  It is challenging at times to restrain ourselves, but we allow this expression because we believe that liberty of expression is more important.

Discussion furthers understanding.  The open exchange of ideas is based on the understanding that truth will emerge victorious.  Instead of pointing fingers at the tone, attitude or words, the high road is to find ways to continue the discussion.  After all when a finger is pointing, there are three more pointing back at the accuser.  

If we are to protect our liberty to free and open discussions, we, as individuals, we must not be intimidated by rhetoric and  be willing to stand and courageously enter into the discussion.

Cody Alicea of Denair Middle School in California, is an example.  While Cody rode his bike to school last fall he did so with an American flag.  Under the “concern for safety” he was told during Veterans Week he could no longer display the flag on his bike.  After public outcry, Cody is now allowed to continue to wave the flag proudly on the back of his bike.  

This is just one instance where our liberties are being challenged in the land of the free.  It takes courage to stand for what is right and to secure that freedom.  Cody should be an inspiration to all.  Read more.  As word spread, Cody also received support from fellow citizens in the form or e-mails, phone calls and letters to the school officials. The American Legion veterans helped him celebrate the return of his right to display the American flag.  

Once in A Lifetime

Recently one of the wonders of science occurred on December 21st.  A lunar eclipse where the full moon passes through the shadow of the earth was to be visible to us here in America.  For the first time in some 372 years.  As seems so typical we here in NH would be able to see this once in a lifetime event at 3:15 AM.  So as I departed for bed with the alarm set the sky was clearing.  However, at that wee hour of the morning, the snow clouds blotted all views of the eclipse.

But this morning, due to the wonders of technology, William Castleman, caught this wonderful observation.  What wonderful Creator made the heavens to declare the glory of our Maker.  And thanks to Doug Philips of Vision Forum, I am able to share it with you.  Enjoy - Goodnight Moon


Winter Solstice Lunar Eclipse 2010 from William Castleman on Vimeo.

Regarding the TSA and Airport Security

I understand that the Transportation Security Agency is not the enemy.  I also understand that they are using methods to protect the public and our country.

But here is my question.  Each time I book a flight to travel, I am asked to verify my birth date for validation that I am who I am.  Additionally, over the past several years, I have been cleared by the FBI, the US military, the OSI, etc. to represent my country both in the USA and abroad.  I have also obtained a security clearance to work for the State Department and been cleared numerous times to be in the presence of Presidents of the United States and other dignitaries.  All of which include extensive background checks. My husband and other family members who have and are serving this country as military members, and their families, have been cleared multiple times as representatives for this country. Why are we continually subjected to any of the full body scanners and/or pat downs?  Why are we continually required to be humiliated and harassed?

I have other questions, but time and space do not permit a full discussion.

However, it is time to stop all the politically correct nonsense and follow the advice of the consultants our tax dollars employ.  According to these advisors, body scanners do not reveal the information we need to stop bombings such as the most recently prevented attempt at the tree lighting festivities in Portland, Oregon.  Employing techniques like those tried and proven in Israel that profile and observe behavior work.  

For true security we should profile and observe behavior while asking questions, more questions and still more questions.  We should coordinate the information we have on individuals and focus our effort on those people whose profile is questionable. This will deter and protect the traveling public with the minimum hinderance on their ability to transit through our country.

What do you think?

SECULAR SANCTUARIES

I’m tired of hearing from Christians, pastors and lay people alike, who buy into the fantasy of the separation of church and state.  Sure they all can quote the First Amendment that says the government should stay out of a church’s business and all can rail about attacks on Christian beliefs by our government, but they are missing the point.  No where in the First Amendment does it say that churches should leave the battlefield to non-believers and politicians.

What is today’s secular sanctuary?  Where do the secular worship?  I’ll tell you where, it’s in the halls of government.  It’s in the Statehouse in Concord and in our Congress.  It’s in our schools.  It’s in a multitude of government institutions.  To use a familiar phrase, “What Would Jesus Do?”  We don’t have to speculate.  All we have to do is read the story of Jesus rampaging through the temple and over turning the money changer’s tables.  If he were alive today (and when he returns), I believe that’s what you would see him do.  He’d rampage through all these secular sanctuaries, overturning the tables and chasing the scoundrels out.

So what are our pastors and lay people doing?  We are called upon to be Christ like, but what do we do?  We hide in our homes and behind our pulpits, not engaging and rampaging in the secular sanctuaries.  We rant about the horrible politicians and what they are doing to our freedoms and our families, but for the most part, we do this behind our Christian walls.  We’ve ceded the battlefield to the enemy and the enemy is having a great romp!  Maybe we should think, “What WILL Jesus Do?”  What WILL he do when he returns and sees that all we’ve done is wait for his return behind our walls?

In the recent elections, it was clear that we are playing it safe and staying home while non-believers are rampaging through the secular sanctuaries.  Our voting record, both in quantity and quality is abysmal.  It’s time that we do what Jesus did and rampage through the secular sanctuaries!