Bill introduced in NH to nullify Patriot Act

New Hampshire Legislature ^

[Born in a Rage]

HB 1246 - AS INTRODUCED

2003 SESSION

03-2084

08/09

HOUSE BILL 1246

AN ACT nullifying the USA Patriot Act.

SPONSORS: Rep. McElroy, Hills 61; Rep. Itse, Rock 80; Rep. Bicknell, Rock 73; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 13

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This bill states that the USA Patriot Act shall not be recognized in the state of New Hampshire.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

03-2084

08/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Three

AN ACT nullifying the USA Patriot Act.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Purpose. New Hampshire supports the constitutions of New Hampshire and of the United States; therefore, New Hampshire is taking this position against the USA Patriot Act, along with other states and communities, because:

I. The USA Patriot Act blatantly violates both the constitutions of New Hampshire and of the United States. Because of this violation, the USA Patriot Act poses a greater threat to the security and freedom of the residents of both New Hampshire and of the United States.

II. It seems that the well being and security of the United States and of the sovereign states is not truly of paramount interest to the drafters of the USA Patriot Act since the drafters ignored concerns of the generals of our Joint Chiefs of Staff that our homeland security is at major risk because the federal government has relinquished its Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 responsibilities by its actions of having given the United States production and supply capability to foreign powers and influences, as a result of treaties like GATT, NAFTA, treaties with the World Trade Organization, and other ill begotten commercial treaties and agreements; which means that if we or our allies are attacked we are in serious jeopardy of not being able to supply our troops or our allies, especially if we are attacked by the powers to whom we have given our production capability.

III. With this in mind and to resolve this very serious homeland security situation, New Hampshire is additionally insisting that the nation and all the states rebuild our manufacturing and production capabilities and accomplish this rebuilding with a similar philosophy and the strategies our nation used when putting a man on the moon.

2 Nullification of the USA Patriot Act. The state of New Hampshire shall no longer recognize the USA Patriot Act, including any subsequent rules, executive orders, or judicial interpretations to have effect or to be binding on the state or on the residents of this state.

3 Copies. The clerk of the house of representatives shall send copies of this act to the President of the United States, the New Hampshire Congressional delegation, and to the speakers of the house of representatives of the other 49 states.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2005.

[ashrak]

If you do not wish law enforcement to use "every" tool, then you do not wish them to succeed in "any" of their efforts.

The only people that need to worry about law enforcement using them "tools" are people that need to be "fixed".

[ashrak]

it seems you would like their powers limited to the point that they can not function at all. What, honestly, do you fear? Are you a criminal? Do you have something to hide?
Why not let them look at you and see that there is nothing to see and move on? That indeed, is how they do there job.

Noone can ever find anything unless they look for it.
If they are not allowed to look, then they will never find anything. It really is that simple.

[Joshh86]

Enough flaming, we're going overboard. Basically what i am saying is look at our constitution, I am talking about limited government. What you are talking about sounds like a police state, that is what i fear.

[ashrak]

I understand how you may take it as a police state support. Thats not it at all. I support a state where law enforcement has the tools they need to do their job effectively. That means not abusing powers granted them against honest hardworking decent people. I do not think it is one way (anarchy) or the other way (police state. I feel that a balance can be struck between the two. I, like you fear a total police state. That, I think, is what we are eradicating in iraq.

To be effective, any actor must have proper tools to complete the tasks assigned to them. Clear boundries and punishments for violating them are part of a proper solution.

[Joshh86]

I don't want them to have the chance to abuse those powers, I'm talking about things such as wiretaps, warrantless searches, or property seizures. Janet reno tactics. maybe we should define "every tool"

[ashrak]

Wire taps are fine with me as long as they have a warrant. I think that ppatriots allowance for a warrant to cover a person rather than a phone is a great idea. That defeats an easy way around taps...the changing of phones. Awarrant should be required for a search but when a search needs to happen in a timely fasion I see no problem with it as long as they find what they are looking for...if they do not a stiff punishment for them is in order. And I do not mean letting a guilty person off...that makes no sense to me.

I have no problem with more defenition in their perameters...the obly problem I see is this...if all perameters are known then operating outside them in order to circumvent them is much easier....like this for instance....if bush was to make all intelligence related to alqaeda open book today, they would know all we do know and in addition all we do not...that is not a good solution....secrets are needed in law enforcement thats why I think harsh punishments is the key rather than limiting their ability. "Every" tool would bring us harm i think...but more defenition would be proper.

I fear the govt having too much power as well but someone has to be able to make decisions. As far as siezures go, patriot is pretty clear....the pres has the power and I am ok with that..someone has to have it, and again harch punishment for abuse is prudent.

[Joshh86]

its a touchy subject i would not want to be the one defining they limits

[ashrak]

You are right about that, touchy indeed and it is a great responcability. Rumsfeld was right on the money when he said that no matter a person does or does not do, someone will always be unhappy and take action accordingly.

I think that is absolutely true. I also think that someone has to take that challenge by the horns and make tough decisions, this is what I feel the bush admin is doing. There is much more to do and I hope they continue doing it. Time will show if indeed these decisions are productive and proper. Bush will be held to account by time (history) and I think it will look as favorable on him as it does ronald reagan.