Claremont III?

I school budget hearing from Fremont has recently surfaced onto the web, an excerpt a little over 8 minutes long can be found here.

What's interesting is the call from Peg Pinkham that she would love to see the issue turn into another Claremont.

This is how we slowly lose control folks!

Instead of questioning whether or not something thrust upon us that we've lived successfully without for years is actually necessary, we instead simply question who can we find to pay for it so we don't have to.

Part of the problem we face is that people fail to understand or know about our own Constitution.  Not the federal constitution but the state.

Those looking to spend without question are quick to bring up article 28-a which reads:

[Art.] 28. [Taxes, by Whom Levied.] No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duty, shall be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, or their representatives in the legislature, or authority derived from that body.

So in other words, if the state requires something from town government they must supply the funding for it.  That's the view many on that Fremont school board in the video seem to have.

However there is one gentleman, who's name I unfortunately do not have, who makes a very good point... is a mandate helping if we can't afford it?  Are we really helping kids when we are taxing their parents out of their homes?

It is that reason we need to turn our view to Article 7 of the NH Constitution which reads:

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

We already fail miserably at following our own Constitution when the federal government puts unconstitutional mandates upon us such as the no child left behind act.  Arguing that the state should help pay for it's own mandates as well as the federal ones is only compounding the problem and stripping us of individual freedom and independents as towns to do what we see as the best interests of our children.

While this video discussion may amount to nothing more then a town stomping its feet and demanding the rest of us pay for their expenses on top of our own it may also turn out to be the spark that ignites another Claremont case in which countless more dollars will be wasted in courts from all levels as groups of towns seek to push their expenses onto others.