LTE's from Undergrounders

[Quantrill]

AWESOME!   Karma to DADA!

[Rochelle]

Here's a Real ID LTE:

As a new resident, I looked forward to getting a New Hampshire driver's license and plates for my car with the state motto "Live Free or Die" on them. However, within the New Hampshire DMV, the motto has been revised to "Live free and show me your birth certificate, passport, old driver's license, marriage certificate, registration and social security number." Coming from a state where the only thing we need to have to get a license from out of state is a social security number or an old license, it made me wonder how this is free.
Getting a driver's license was meant to ensure people can drive, but recently has become a form of identification. Of even greater concern is the Real ID Act, which will turn all driver's licenses into a national ID card. This does nothing to make our streets safer as the more difficult it becomes to get a license, the more people will decide that it isn't worth the bother. The number of documents required by the DMV will increase, the already long lines will become longer, and the costs born by the state of New Hampshire and its citizens will rise intolerably.

Sincerely,
Rochelle

[d_goddard]

Here's a Real ID LTE:

Way to go!
To which paper(s) did you submit it?

[Dave Ridley]

Thanks for composing this LTE Rochelle!  I hope you'll build many more every time you get angry.

[Rochelle]

I just submitted it to the Union Leader, being that it's the local paper

[pounaw]

to: castle_chaser
re: NH constitution / education funding

Beware the judiciary.

They rule from the top down, instead of the govt being ruled from the bottom up (by the people).

The NH constitution is the highest law in the state of NH.  By definition, no law can be created in NH that conflicts with the NH constitution.  That is what a constitution is.

The supreme court in other states routinely ignore their own constitutions.  Instead of taking the time to convince a majority of its legislators to amend it, they ignore it, and rule by judicial fiat.  THis makes us a nation of men, not laws.

RE: education funding.

In NJ, a state with 8M population, but the same area as NH, the justices just ignored a clause in the consitution that required the state to provide education for children only between the ages of 5-18.  This was done to create state funded 'head-start' like programs on the state level for preschoolers.

You need to get to page 2 of this op-ed to get to the part that discusses it, but I recommend it as a harbinger of what can happen in NH, if the slippery slope is not stopped in its tracks NOW.  Don't think for a minute it cannot happen here.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1162097090226220.xml&coll=1

This type of state mandate is what makes NJ unaffordable for many people, and they are fleeing to other states.

[Rosie the Riveter]

to: castle_chaser
re: NH constitution / education funding

Beware the judiciary.

They rule from the top down, instead of the govt being ruled from the bottom up (by the people).

The NH constitution is the highest law in the state of NH.  By definition, no law can be created in NH that conflicts with the NH constitution.  That is what a constitution is.

The supreme court in other states routinely ignore their own constitutions.  Instead of taking the time to convince a majority of its legislators to amend it, they ignore it, and rule by judicial fiat.  THis makes us a nation of men, not laws.

RE: education funding.

In NJ, a state with 8M population, but the same area as NH, the justices just ignored a clause in the consitution that required the state to provide education for children only between the ages of 5-18.  This was done to create state funded 'head-start' like programs on the state level for preschoolers.

You need to get to page 2 of this op-ed to get to the part that discusses it, but I recommend it as a harbinger of what can happen in NH, if the slippery slope is not stopped in its tracks NOW.  Don't think for a minute it cannot happen here.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1162097090226220.xml&coll=1

This type of state mandate is what makes NJ unaffordable for many people, and they are fleeing to other states.

Thanks for the info. I find government education to be a very interesting topic. I wonder why more families don't see clearly the fact that the education their children receive is very poor and in NH unconstitutional... "You get what you pay for" I know we pay in taxes..but it's fun to say that

[FrankChodorov]

Their officers are attempting to fine me $125 because I peaceably petitioned the government for a redress of grievances.   Specifically the charge is "distribution of handbills," after I entered the Nashua IRS office and handed flyers to employees.  These flyers question the morality of serving an institution which funds torture and waste.

Since I haven't yet paid the fine, DHS has "invited" me to appear in Federal district court November 13.  I will do so, after leading a demonstration outside the building.  This will be a protest against the waste and torture Washington forces you and your loved ones to underwrite.

the irony of inviting people to protest on the collectively owned sidewalks that contain our common right of ways to free speech, free assembly and redress of greivances because there is no common right of way within the offices of collectively owned buildings...

[Dreepa]

the irony of inviting people to protest on the collectively owned sidewalks that contain our common right of ways to free speech, free assembly and redress of greivances because there is no common right of way within the offices of collectively owned buildings...

Little late on this Frank?

[Dreepa]

Eques' letter was printed on 1/11.

Also there are a few letters that were printed today that sounds like people who agree with many of us.

They should be contacted.
I guess I will start another thread for that.

[Pat McCotter]

Frivolous? Prove it 
Chris Lopez, Concord 

For the Monitor
January 30. 2007 8:00AM

I am a law-abiding citizen who pays her taxes. I do this, however, out of fear of recrimination. I cannot afford to be put in jail and am not educated enough to understand the tax laws.

What I want to know is, why report claims that "the law is ironclad and there is virtually (?) no way to undermine it in a legal tax battle?" Where are the facts?

Sites like givemeliberty.org have reports on a variety of recent legal wins, including court cases where the law has been debated and the individuals have been proven not guilty of income tax evasion! Look these up and make up your own mind.

How can lawyers and judges assert that the law is legal by simply stating that it is so? Why were the Browns not allowed to present their understanding of what the law is? Isn't the courtroom the perfect place for a "legal debate" of these laws?

I would like to see the facts presented in a courtroom. I wonder if there isn't something to the "frivolous arguments" that those 250,000 to 500,000 people believe in.

Why should I be afraid to question the law and its meaning? Why are juries being instructed by the judge on what the law is? Isn't there supposed to be some kind of check and balance there? Our juries have the right to be fully informed.

CHRIS LOPEZ

Concord

[Pat McCotter]

Why the wait? 
Pat Mccotter, Concord 

For the Monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30. 2007 8:00AM

The state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to say that the state must define and fund an adequate education.

The sections being used in the interpretation have been in the constitution since it was adopted in 1784. If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?

PAT McCOTTER

Concord

[Rosie the Riveter]

Why the wait? 
Pat Mccotter, Concord 

For the Monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30. 2007 8:00AM

The state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to say that the state must define and fund an adequate education.

The sections being used in the interpretation have been in the constitution since it was adopted in 1784. If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?

PAT McCOTTER

Concord

You are so right on 

[d_goddard]

If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?

+1 million, Pat McCotter

-1 million, every legislator out there (they know who they are) that don't give a fig what that G.D. piece of paper says, especially if it stands in the way of them doing all the good they know they can do, using all the tools of the State at their disposal 

[Tyler Stearns]

Why the wait? 
Pat Mccotter, Concord 

For the Monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30. 2007 8:00AM

The state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to say that the state must define and fund an adequate education.

The sections being used in the interpretation have been in the constitution since it was adopted in 1784. If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?

PAT McCOTTER

Concord

(pointing to the constitution)