Dems Bring D.C. to Concord

In 2018 Democrats running for state representative seats in Concord proclaimed the need for bipartisanship. They won a majority in the house and senate with their campaign promises. The truth became clear very soon after they swore their oath to our constitution; they had the majority and they intended to subject the minority to their rule.

Their first move in the house was to violate their oath to our constitution by making a ‘rule’ mandating training. The constitution reads; “Part II, [Art.] 22. [House to Elect Speaker and Officers, Settle Rules of Proceedings, and Punish Misconduct.] The house of representatives shall choose their own speaker, appoint their own officers, and settle the rules of proceedings in their own house; and shall be judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications, of its members, as pointed out in this constitution.” As you can clearly see rules are to govern proceedings in the house.

The rule passed by the Democrats reads; “Rule 67. All legislators, legislative officers, and legislative staff shall attend in-person education and training regarding sexual and other unlawful harassment and discrimination.” Not only is this not a rule governing a proceeding in the house, it is an unbounded mandate imposed upon duly elected members. As it is not in compliance with the constitution, it is a nullity.

New members of the house came in promising bipartisanship, but what they actually intend to do is carry out their campaign of ‘social justice’. They intend to replace our common moral principles with their self aggrandizing ‘virtue signalling‘. They intend to replace the republic our forefathers bequeathed to us with ‘our democracy‘.

The democracy that they seek is simply tyranny by the majority and this is undeniably seen in their actions. They have put forward legislation that would make California and New York blush. Fortunately, Governor Sununu has stood firm against the most egregious of these assaults on our liberties. Again in the second year of this term, having no intention of putting forward sensible legislation, they have brought back the same bills that were vetoed last year, and will be vetoed again this year.

This campaign by the social justice warriors is not about helping the citizens of this state, it is political posturing of the kind found in the District of Columbia. It demeans the dignity of our house and our long standing traditions.

I will not submit to this tyrannical, unconstitutional action. I will proudly accept a badge of honor from those who will reprimand my stand against this assault on our republic. 

Do You Own Your Property

On Thursday,December 19, 2019 the Belknap Superior court issued its ruling in the case of Town of Belmont v. Mike Sylvia. The court ordered an injunction against the use of my property, and awarded attorney’s fees to be paid to the town. They held in abeyance any fines for prior use of my own property.

At the heart of this issue is the people’s right to ownership of property. To own a thing is to have control of that thing. If one owns and controls an object then he has a right to use that property as he sees fit as long as his use harms no other. If one is truly an owner there is no need to ask for permission to use that which is owned. To be required to seek permission to use ones own property, such as applying for a building permit, is contrary to our right of holding property.

The New Hampshire constitution, upon which our government claims authority, is a beloved document which I hold in high esteem. It predates the founding of the united States and is by far a better constitution than the U.S. Constitution. It was made clear prior to the formation of the New Hampshire state government that the construction of a government could not come into being until the inalienable rights of the people were documented. Therefore, before the republic was established in Part II of the New Hampshire constitution, Part I reserved to the people of the state all the essential rights which were unnecessary to a proper government. Only after our rights were reserved did we then parse out powers that would be necessary to a just government.

We the people of New Hampshire surrendered up only such authority as would be needed to form a society which could work together for the protection of all citizens. This exchange was to protect our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Among the proper roles of our government is to assure against trespasses upon its citizens. If the actions of one person reaches into harming the rights of another citizen the state was empowered with what is know as the police power of the state. All of the reserved rights of Part I were held as private rights which would be protected by the state; lacking that protection the constitution is null.

In the case at hand the court has ruled that I have harmed the Town of Belmont. I did not go to the Town and ask for permission to use my property. The harm alleged is that I have violated a Town ordinance. I posit that the Town’s ordinance is in violation of my Part I protected right to the ownership and peaceful enjoyment of my property. As we all should know, any law made in violation of our constitution is a nullity. The Town has not protected my right to property, it has failed to do so.

As we go onward from here, I want to express my gratitude for friends and neighbors who have supported my efforts along the way. I have stood not only for myself but for the people of Belmont and beyond. So, I ask you; do we accept that our property is not our own?

Send an e-mail with your thoughts; mike@mikesylvia.org