New Hampshire re U.S. v U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Treefarmer
Gracefultrader,
I've been pondering this statement a bit, and am wondering if it means that the SOS's office and the A.G.'s office of New Hampshire are in disagreement over the definition of the term "United States" on New Hampshire government forms?
If they are, then that would constitute a disagreement of consequential proportions.
What are the repercussions of this disagreement in your experience, if indeed such disagreement exists?
The last time I asked (about two years ago) they were at odds on this issue. I've had no personal experience of any consequences, but I wrote a bill to clarify significant legal definitions under State law. Unfortunately, the first-term representative who submitted the bill got caught up in his work for Ron Paul and neglected to follow through on some aspect of the registration process so it will have to be re-submitted this coming session. The potential issue that could arise is another of the esoteric type wherein someone may have signed a document affirming themselves to be a "United States citizen" (e.g. they changed the voter registration form in our state so that one must now attest to this - though the State Constitution does NOT require it...) without knowing WHICH form of "United States citizen" they are affirming. Generally the form of the jurat will provide the necessary clue as to which definition of "United States" is intended (see 28 U.S.C. ?1746 for the two variations) and virtually every form I've ever seen uses the ? 1746(2) (Federal citizen) form.
Consequently, if you sign your license, voter registration card, U.S. Passport or other such documents without specifying which type of "U.S." citizen/Citizen you are - you'll most probably give evidence by consent of having (voluntarily) joined the federal political class and made yourself subject to its jurisdiction. In effect, such an unqualified signature will provide prima facia evidence that can be used against you in a federal court. The government loves to prosecute on the basis of prima facia evidence... and most people who find themselves trying defend themselves against such "evidence" won't have a clue what hit them when they're convicted by their own ignorance.
site: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Under Article 11, the New Hampshire Constitution requires that one be an "inhabitant" of (read: domiciled in) New Hampshire, 18 years or older, and not convicted of treason, bribery or a violation of N.H./U.S. election laws (unless the right is later restored by the Supreme Court). It says nothing about being a citizen of either New Hampshire or the United States. So why then does the New Hampshire registration form require one to sign a jurat that says you are? The form (http://www.gonashua.com/filestorage/...r_reg_form.pdf) also conflates "domicile" with "residence" and they are NOT legally the same thing. Without citing any statute or other authority, the form states, "In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the State of New Hampshire which apply to all residents..." I doubt it, but haven't made the inquiry. This form is relatively new and does NOT conform to the State law cited on its face (RSA 654:7 - see this: http://nhrsa.org/law/654-7-voter-registration-form/) The form under law, last revised in 1979, also exceeds the specifications for voter qualification defined by the State Constitution but doesn't include the notice about getting one's vehicle registered within 60 days OR the bit of conflation regarding domicile/residency).
They recently passed a new voter I.D. act, which has lots of people up in arms, writing letters to the newspapers claiming it's designed to keep the poorer classes from the polls and such non-sense, but no one I've read has ever referred to the Constitutional requirements... so, do you thing we have a potential conflict forming here?
