In New Hampshire, “Live Free or Die” is more than just the state motto – it’s a constitutionally protected right. Now, the state constitution’s “Right to Revolution” clause is being used as a defense by Occupy New Hampshire protesters arrested during their camp’s eviction in November.
Occupy New Hampshire was evicted from their encampment in the state’s largest city on November 20th, just three weeks after the camp had been established. Five activists were arrested and charged with Criminal Trespass, while more than a dozen others were issued citations for violation of the park’s 11 o’clock curfew.
Matthew Richards, 20, described the unique courtesy of both the occupiers and police prior to his arrest that night (an attitude which later earned Occupy New Hampshire the label of “too polite for its own good”). The local police chief visited the occupation’s nightly General Assembly to tell occupiers that arrests would be made that night, Richards reported.
At 11 o’clock, members of Occupy New Hampshire lined up single-file to receive summonses before leaving the park. Richards chose to stay. “They asked me if my cuffs were too tight,” he recalled. “They drove us to the police station and booked us and then we were out in an hour. We came out and had a pizza party in the lobby of the police station.”
Now, members of Occupy New Hampshire have joined their defense and submitted a joint motion to dismiss the charges. Written by Barbara Keshen of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, the thirteen-page document obtained by NYU Local argues that the protesters’ actions are protected by both the federal and state constitutions.
The document offers a standard defense of Occupy New Hampshire’s encampment as constitutionally protected symbolic speech, arguing that the encampment demonstrated “the possibility of a more democratic, just and economically egalitarian society. This symbolic expression in a traditional public forum exemplifies political speech, which falls squarely within the guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, association, and the right to petition the government.”
This constitutional arguments are commonplace in defense of Occupy encampments around the country.. However, according to the motion, “the New Hampshire constitution provides even greater protection for the defendants’ actions than does the Federal constitution.” These include clauses in the state constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly and petition in language even stronger than what can be found in the First Amendment to the Federal constitution.
Even further, the New Hampshire constitution guarantees its citizens a “Right of Revolution”: “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right out to reform the old, or establish a new government.”
The motion to dismiss offers an interpretation of this clause as it applies to the case at hand, stating that the Occupy movement “seeks to bring out revolution by implementing the aspirational government that is its goal. When the “Occupy” movement provides free transportation, food, shelter, and medical care to the 99%, that is revolutionary. When the “Occupy” movement rejects hierarchical decision making, but instead adopts an open, participatory, consensus model of governance, that is revolutionary. The Defendants were engaged in a peaceful revolution to be brought about by example, not by bloodshed.”
Matt Richards is enthusiastic and optimistic about the motion. “I think we have all the law on our side no matter how many conservative judges we go in front of,” he said. “I know that we’re right. I know that we were in the right staying in the park, legally and morally.”
Beautiful!
“Live Free or Die”, “Right to Revolution” clause makes me wish I lived in New Hampshire, except I am a southern Calif boy and addicted to the weather.
Damn! I wish people would read our Federal Constitution, the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers……. then they would realize how we have been deceived by our politicians and media to believe the opposite of what that fabulous blueprint of checks and balances are for. The Constitution is to LIMIT government powers.
It’s Liberty Stupid. We have inalienable rights and freedoms BUT, your rights and freedoms are NOT an obligation on my rights, freedoms, and property to PROVIDE yours.
Laws, bills, mandates, orders that steal (tax) my liberty or property to provide for others is slavery……. I ain’t stingy and will bust my ass to help others, but theft by bureaucratic nonsense is not tolerable. The operative word is “voluntary”.
[...] New Hampshire, “Live Free or Die” is more than just the state motto – it’s a constitutionally protected right. Now, the state constitution’s “Right to Revolution” clause is being used as a defense by [...]
Durham, Lee-Madbury election Scared yet-just wait
Durham-Lee-Madbury will be angry if the fact the news media censors a candidate from the informed voters because the editors determined this candidate is to dangerous to be elected to public office. I have a better than average chance of winning is it because the newspapers censor my candidacy making the ignorant voter not see the truth. Maybe I am sitting on the next ORSB because it is what the people want. The people see an honest, well-spoken citizen that will represent the child as well as the taxpayer openly and honestly. The voters have a right to know (RTK) my mental and physical state. The voters have a RTK my VA medical care was stopped to stop my opinion letters of government wrongs that the news media censors anyway. The voters have a RTK that I am a jailbird. I lost my freedom for six months on bogus terrorism charges to stop my opinion letters. The people have a RTK that as a volunteer I took a case for a Madbury NH family to the NH Supreme Court about the criminal acts of Judge Peter Favuer. Fauver with intent to harm US citizens used judicial power to let the Madbury NH selectmen take from local residents for the selectmen’s own personal gains. The NH SC refused to hear the case. The people have a RTK because Peter Macdonald is the 100% disabled US Marine telling the voters the truth.
I have four service-connected disabilities. All from separate missions three being combat related missions. The Durham Police interviewed me the other day on possible criminal acts to harm children. Do the voters have a RTK? How could any newspapers, government or law enforcement cover up facts that the victim or defendant is telling you? The interview was bogus but held in a public place to attract the voter’s attention (at least that is the way some see it). I am running for elected office and all the other candidates get opinion letters favorable to their campaign printed daily in the newspapers. What journalism award should these private business brag about receiving for black balling the voters RTK? Does a 100% disabled US Military Veteran have a right to walk in Durham, Lee and Madbury NH.
A court order barring me from schools and all public buildings stopped my volunteering every day in schools around the state. Now when elected because the editors believe I am to dangerous to inform the voters about will get a key to schools. Will it be the police or an ambulance dragging me away from schools educating your child of a totalitarianism state and what domination is like?
I ask the question scared yet-just wait for what the government is doing to this disabled US Marine can be called justified for what I have done defending the USA. The safety of a child should never be censored from the voters because they are innocent until you send them off to the next war of conflict our politicians deem necessary to pad their pockets more. Durham, Lee and Madbury will be angry as the editors and politician use the safety of your child carelessly. I am a US Marine that should never have been aloud to come back alive.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper fi
465 Packers falls Rd Lee NH 03824 603-781-3839
PS Police officer Frank Daily asked me if I knew when a Flashback is going to happen. Frank it is right now.