Can the State Suspend Your Civil Rights, as Long as It’s in ‘Good Faith?’

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,369
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Interesting article:



N.H. Solicitor General Daniel Will was the leading architect of a dangerous theory adopted last year by some New Hampshire courts; namely, that constitutional rights can be “suspended” during a State of Emergency. Now, the Executive Council is considering whether to appoint him to a position on the N.H. Superior Court bench, and held a public hearing on the matter on May 6.


On April 9 of this year, a bipartisan majority of the New Hampshire House called Will’s theory from last year “disturbing” and approved a bill to rule out his theory under New Hampshire state law.


Last week, Will had a chance to explain or repudiate this view. Instead, Will brushed off the controversy and acted like he had no idea what the House was even talking about. “I’ve never argued that the Constitution can be suspended,” he told Councilor Joe Kenney. Later, he again told Kenney “It’s never been about suspending the Constitution. I have never made that argument.”


When Councilor Dave Wheeler questioned Will on the same topic, he doubled down. “What was argued was not to suspend the Constitution. We never made that argument.” He continued to repeat this lie again and again throughout the recorded hearing.


So where did the idea of suspending the Constitution come from? Have groups like RebuildNH just made up the claim? The simple answer is “no.” The public record here clearly contradicts Will’s denials.


Just take a look at the records for yourself. On page six of the Binford decision, the judge in the case says “the State asserts that Governor Sununu… may use his emergency powers to temporarily suspend or limit fundamental rights.” Again, on page 10 of the same document, the judge says “the State contends… during a state of emergency, executives are granted broad latitude to suspend civil liberties in order to address the emergency.”



“The State” in this court document means Daniel Will, who was the lead attorney for the Attorney General who made the argument for “the State” in the case. Was Will telling Executive Councilors that the judge in the case was lying?


It gets worse than this. Judge John Kissinger explains exactly where he sourced the language about “suspending civil liberties.” Look at page 11 of the Binford decision in the section that has the subject heading: “Governor’s Authority to Suspend Civil Liberties.” Did you catch that subject heading? In that section, the judge says he is going to apply an old case called Smith v. Avino. Lawyers say that Avino is what is called a “non-binding” case, meaning it did not have to be applied in New Hampshire.


What did the Avino case say? The judge quotes it on page 11. It says, “In an emergency situation, fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech may be temporarily limited or suspended.
...... [worth reading the balance]
 
Can a state suspend your civil rights in good faith?

Yes, see martial law as well as habeus corpus.
It seems like their way around this has always been around the "congress shall make no law..." statements in the Constitution.
Are they technically making a law that directly infringes on the Constitution when they transfer those decisions to the executive branch?
I mean they aren't technically making any laws that directly infringing. They are giving Governerors/Presidents excecutive powers under "emergency".
Usually these suspensions have to be challenged in court, and usually the suspensions are short, so they go nowhere, or they get a sympatheic judiciary anyway.
Gov't is filled with power hungry statists top to bottom and enough sheep to go along with their tyranny.
 
Someone on NES here has an auto signature quote appearing on all of his/her posts. Words, I think from the NH constitution?, about how if people enter society then they give up some responsibility to protect themselves as an individual as the society as a whole will do that. But if society fails at that, then the individual can revoke society's responsibility and take personal responsibility to protect oneself. Seems like this basic idea trumps the states right to suspends civil rights.
 
Someone on NES here has an auto signature quote appearing on all of his/her posts. Words, I think from the NH constitution?, about how if people enter society then they give up some responsibility to protect themselves as an individual as the society as a whole will do that. But if society fails at that, then the individual can revoke society's responsibility and take personal responsibility to protect oneself. Seems like this basic idea trumps the states right to suspends civil rights.

Yes, somebody does. 😉
 
Yes, somebody does. 😉
it's too bad that men don't choose to enter a society. Just like the laughable "consent of the governed" BS.

Ah so you're saying I can withdraw my consent, go live in a cabin in the woods and be entirely free from your society, its laws and governance, and taxes? Well, no of course not, we'll cage you if you do that, or shoot you trying to cage you.
 
Interesting article:



N.H. Solicitor General Daniel Will was the leading architect of a dangerous theory adopted last year by some New Hampshire courts; namely, that constitutional rights can be “suspended” during a State of Emergency. Now, the Executive Council is considering whether to appoint him to a position on the N.H. Superior Court bench, and held a public hearing on the matter on May 6.


On April 9 of this year, a bipartisan majority of the New Hampshire House called Will’s theory from last year “disturbing” and approved a bill to rule out his theory under New Hampshire state law.


Last week, Will had a chance to explain or repudiate this view. Instead, Will brushed off the controversy and acted like he had no idea what the House was even talking about. “I’ve never argued that the Constitution can be suspended,” he told Councilor Joe Kenney. Later, he again told Kenney “It’s never been about suspending the Constitution. I have never made that argument.”


When Councilor Dave Wheeler questioned Will on the same topic, he doubled down. “What was argued was not to suspend the Constitution. We never made that argument.” He continued to repeat this lie again and again throughout the recorded hearing.


So where did the idea of suspending the Constitution come from? Have groups like RebuildNH just made up the claim? The simple answer is “no.” The public record here clearly contradicts Will’s denials.


Just take a look at the records for yourself. On page six of the Binford decision, the judge in the case says “the State asserts that Governor Sununu… may use his emergency powers to temporarily suspend or limit fundamental rights.” Again, on page 10 of the same document, the judge says “the State contends… during a state of emergency, executives are granted broad latitude to suspend civil liberties in order to address the emergency.”



“The State” in this court document means Daniel Will, who was the lead attorney for the Attorney General who made the argument for “the State” in the case. Was Will telling Executive Councilors that the judge in the case was lying?


It gets worse than this. Judge John Kissinger explains exactly where he sourced the language about “suspending civil liberties.” Look at page 11 of the Binford decision in the section that has the subject heading: “Governor’s Authority to Suspend Civil Liberties.” Did you catch that subject heading? In that section, the judge says he is going to apply an old case called Smith v. Avino. Lawyers say that Avino is what is called a “non-binding” case, meaning it did not have to be applied in New Hampshire.


What did the Avino case say? The judge quotes it on page 11. It says, “In an emergency situation, fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech may be temporarily limited or suspended.
...... [worth reading the balance]
We'll be hanging you shortly, right after you get a fair trial.

Judge Roy Bean
 
Same thing that's happening everywhere.
only getting worse:

"Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they’re less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations."

This is how countries die.
 
only getting worse:

"Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they’re less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations."

This is how countries die.
My gen z friends are more anti government than 80% of NES
 
only getting worse:

"Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they’re less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations."

This is how countries die.

This is just disinfo. Notice all the citations point back to that same site, but there's no info about the studies or where/how they were conducted? The other articles are the same. CCP rag I suspect. Every article on that site is the same identity politics garbage.
 
This is just disinfo. Notice all the citations point back to that same site, but there's no info about the studies or where/how they were conducted? The other articles are the same. CCP rag I suspect. Every article on that site is the same identity politics garbage.
so you think Gen Z is right leaning? [rofl]
 
so you think Gen Z is right leaning? [rofl]

you posted an article making a claim, i pointed out that claim didn't seem to be backed up by facts. there are lots of young ppl joining mma clubs though. record numbers of people joining my gun clubs, lots of them young.
 
it's too bad that men don't choose to enter a society. Just like the laughable "consent of the governed" BS.

Ah so you're saying I can withdraw my consent, go live in a cabin in the woods and be entirely free from your society, its laws and governance, and taxes? Well, no of course not, we'll cage you if you do that, or shoot you trying to cage you.

More or less. The original point was to simply enumerate the fundamental concept of a free society knowing that all governments always shift away from that. And when they do, one ought to fight against it. That’s all.

So yes, if you wish to live free from all society and neither accept nor contribute to anything in it, you should be free to do just that. And yes, the reality is, it doesn’t work that way.

But more to the point of that specific article of the NH Constitution, if you wish to live in a society in which you contribute and benefit from said society, anything you give up to contribute to it, society is obliged to benefit you, not take from you, in kind. Again, the reality is, this clearly is no longer , if it ever was, the case.

Bills of Rights don’t say how things are, only how they ought to be.
 
you posted an article making a claim, i pointed out that claim didn't seem to be backed up by facts. there are lots of young ppl joining mma clubs though. record numbers of people joining my gun clubs, lots of them young.
backed up by what facts? You posted none.

24% of GenZ voted in 2020. Guess who they voted for. 65% of them voted for Dementia Boy. Your anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
 
backed up by what facts? You posted none.

24% of GenZ voted in 2020. Guess who they voted for. 65% of them voted for Dementia Boy. Your anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

You're the one who made the original claim backed up by no facts. The 2020 election also had 100% of civil war vets voting for Biden.
 
Never mind the generational stuff: Z is young, and there's an old saying:

As far as New Hampshire goes, the state has always had a pro-liberty culture, even having this in the state constitution:
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

So having authoritarian government officials is disturbing, and needs to be resisted strenuously.
 
Back
Top Bottom