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.