New Hampshire is not a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, and no cities or towns are either. It passed a law prohibiting the local enforcement of nutty anti-second Amendment rules emanating from the Biden administration. And now there is long-shot legislation to kick the EPA to the curb.

As introduced, HB1294 would prohibit the state of New Hampshire from enforcing Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

 

This bill states that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has no constitutional validity in this state, and requires that the New Hampshire department of environmental services provide for all environmental protection in this state.

For the sake of accuracy, this is correct. Like much of what exists inside the Beltway, EPA is an extraconstitutional entity, but mitigating its influence will not be as easy as passing HB 1294. The tyranny of indifference to bureaucrat despotism is not unlike the culture of insouciance related to election tampering. It is easier for people to live with the devil they know than to wrestle with the problem. HB1294 might as well abolish the Federal Department of Education.

 

Because the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is not authorized by any article or amendment of the Constitution of the United States, all regulations imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency are void in New Hampshire. The state and it’s political subdivisions, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities, shall not engage in the enforcement of, or any collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions, or guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency shall have no force of effect in New Hampshire.

 

A few observations about picking fights.

State Legislators’ role is to build barriers between unconstitutional overreach and local control. To protect their voters from the Feds and their State. In fact, someone should teach a class to people claiming to be Republicans about how to inform constituents who ask them to introduce bills about why it might not be the best thing. This would likewise aid them in explaining why they voted against bills with tentacles proposed by other legislators.

It is also their job to protect the locals from home-grown tyranny by using the state’s power to protect natural rights from local overreach.

Additionally, legislators must grasp whether a proposed bill – based on the balance of seats held by either party – will likely do more damage than good. A recent pro-life bill that has no chance of passing (while well-intentioned) packs the Democrat’s magazines on an issue Republicans have been struggling with at the ballot box. It is a good bill with a proper and moral purpose, aligned with party values – but with zero chance of passage, it is a landmine Republicans will have a hard time dodging come November.

Making New Hampshire a sanctuary state from gross federal overreach is always something that should be on the radar, but HB1294 is good for a few blog posts – perhaps a bit of spin in the national spotlight (applause from one side, scorn, and disbelief the other) but not much else. It is dead on arrival with some potential for a cameo role in the upcoming Democrat Produced Play – Republicans are nutty extremists.

That said, and with an appropriate number of political contacts and readers disenfranchised, I am also a big fan of going big or staying home. Democrats do that better, and I’m sure I’ve bitched about it a few hundred times. The Left is not afraid to throw a hail mary on every play. They show the deep ball and somehow get someone across the middle for a first down. They move the ball. Take points when they can.

But New Hampshire Republicans have been scoring points. They have incrementally expanded liberty in the Granite State with almost no majority to speak of despite lousy attendance. They removed regulatory barriers, lowered taxes, and made New Hampshire a beacon in the Northeast for businesses, occupations, and families. In small but great strides, the Dems will completely unravel the first day they have the majority and a Governor who will sing whatever they put on her desk.

I know. It sounds like I’m contradicting myself, but I am not. You have to know your audience and your odds. Dems do not tolerate absences on critical votes, but terrorizing your caucus doesn’t play on the right. Dems can go long on every play, even with a one-vote majority; Republicans can’t. Sorry, that’s just a fact. You’re not getting HB1294 through. And the pro-life bill isn’t going anywhere but into Dem campaign ads, and it could cost the GOP its majority unless leadership finds a way to thread the needle on messaging.

It can be done, and we’re here to help, but as much as I’d like New Hampshire to be a Sanctuary State from a long list of Federal agencies, this is not the legislative crowd to whom you should sing that song. But don’t toss it out. Save it for a different day. You might find yourself with a veto-proof majority as we did in 2011/2012, in which case, you still need to be careful about the long balls you throw but also be ready to throw a lot of them.

 

The post New Hampshire Bill Would Make the Granite State a Sanctuary From the EPA appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Donald Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballot has sparked quite a bit of outrage, as it should have.

Two state courts had already rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment provision of the US Constitution barring anyone who engaged in insurrection from holding office applies here because, quite frankly, it’s absurd. Here’s what Section 3 says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This was put in place to deal with former members of the Confederate military and government following the Civil War. Donald Trump, love him or hate him, did not lead an army, or even a part of one, in armed rebellion against the United States or try to establish another nation. Moreover — small detail — he was formally acquitted of “incitement of insurrection” by his second impeachment trial. So, there’s that.

As such, and in addition to being patently absurd on its face, the Colorado ruling raises its own constitutional issues regarding the 5th Amendment’s right to due process. The US Supreme Court is almost certain to laugh this ruling out of their chambers as they strike it down.

Democrats know this isn’t going anywhere. So, what’s the point? There are several, none of which has to do with keeping Trump off any ballot.

Trump supporters are quick to assume that the Democrats are so deranged by their hatred of the 45th president that they’ll do anything to stop him, even barring him from running. Actually, I think the opposite is true. The Democrats see their best chance to win in November 2024 – not just the presidency but in down-ticket races as well — is if Trump is the Republican nominee. What we have learned over the past half-decade is that Trump is a bigger motivating factor for Democrats – voters and donors alike – than he is for Republicans. Democrats are not about to give that up. Their worst nightmare, at this point, is if Nikki Haley somehow managed to pull off a primary victory.

While many – almost all — polls show Trump beating Biden today, mostly those polls are within the margin of error. Trump loses to a “generic Democrat” by 8 points (i.e… someone other than Biden, and, anticipating another chess move, I personally don’t think Biden will be the ultimate nominee). Haley, on the other hand, is crushing Biden by double digits.

From the Democrats’ perspective, Haley would be able to make the historical case for being the first female president, negating Democrats’ advantage among women. She is a minority, throwing a wrench into their “Republicans are racist” mantra. She’s not Trump, which undermines their “Democracy is under threat from insurrectionists” campaign theme. And Haley plays well in the suburbs, where Republicans have been struggling in recent cycles.

If another presidential candidate such as Haley were to emerge to take the Trump factors off the board for Democrats, and a ten-plus percentage point popular blowout victory by a Republican became plausible, this would send ripples through congressional and senatorial races nationwide. Under such a scenario, Republicans would be sure to solidify their hold on the House and win back the Senate. This is what the Colorado move is designed to prevent.

Haley is gaining momentum in Iowa, is especially gaining in New Hampshire, and after those two primaries, the contest goes to her home state of South Carolina. If Trump somehow loses those first three states, or even the latter two, the shock of it would create an opening for Haley to parley that momentum into a Super Tuesday win. Still a long shot, but it would be an opening, and the Democrats aren’t taking any chances.

The Colorado move, therefore, by design: A) Sucks up all the media oxygen and public attention away from the primary states and Trump’s surging challenger and puts the spotlight back on Trump where the Democrats want it. B) Creates a “rally around Trump” effect within the Republican voter base, again blunting Haley’s ability to make inroads. And C) sets up a future line of attack to rally Democrat voters against the “conservative” US Supreme Court. After SCOTUS inevitably overrules Colorado, look for the Democrats to let loose a broadside accusing the conservative court – especially Trump’s appointees — of “deciding the election.” AKA – Democracy is under threat!

In chess, this would be akin to a gambit sacrificing a piece to gain a stronger, overall strategic position heading into the end game. Will the move work? Will Republicans take the bait? How will Republicans counter? Time will tell.

 

Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.

The post Colorado: Democrats Know This Isn’t Going Anywhere. So, What’s the Point? appeared first on Granite Grok.