Written by Andrew Horn of Amherst, NH.
Executive Summary: Today, House committees will hear two bills. HB 55 would repeal existing New Hampshire law that penalizes citizens that try to avoid registering with the Selective Service. HB 104-FN would call on the governor to stop the New Hampshire National Guard from being released to active duty overseas unless Congress executed an action that would release them, such as declaring war.
 |
According to the House Calendar, tomorrow:
Two bills in State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
Contents
Screenshots from House Calendar
House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
HB 55
HB 104
 |
House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
HB 55
AN ACT repealing the Selective Service Compliance Act.
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Tom Mannion (R),
Cosponsor(s): Rep. Ellen Read (D), Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière (R), Rep. Kristin Noble (R), Rep. Cyril Aures (R), Rep. Heath Howard (D)
Selected quote from the bill:
1 Repeal. The following are repealed:
I. RSA 187-A:38, relative to the title of the Service Registration Awareness and Compliance Act.
II. RSA 187-A:39, relative to the application of the Service Registration Awareness and Compliance Act.
III. RSA 187-A:40, relative to those responsible for complying with the Service Registration Awareness and Compliance Act.
IV. RSA 187-A:41, relative to the exceptions to the Service Registration Awareness and Compliance Act.
Selected quotes from related laws:
187-A:39 Application. –
I. No person who is not in compliance with the Military Selective Service Act as provided in 50 U.S.C. app. section 451 et seq. shall:
(a) Be permitted to enroll in a state-supported institution of postsecondary or higher education.
(b) Be eligible to receive a loan, grant, scholarship, or other financial assistance for postsecondary higher education supported by state revenue, including federal funds, gifts, or grants accepted by the state, or to receive a student loan guaranteed by the state.
(c) Having attained the age of 18 years, be eligible for employment by or service to the state or any political subdivision of the state, including all state boards, commissions, departments, agencies, and institutions.
187-A:40 Responsibility for Compliance. – It shall be the duty of any official having charge of or authority over the hiring of employees by the state or its political subdivisions, and over state supported institutions of postsecondary higher education, and over decisions relating to the granting of state-supported financial assistance for postsecondary higher education as described in this subdivision, to assure themselves that applicants are in compliance with the provisions of RSA 187-A:39.
Analysis: This bill repeals NH laws relevant to compelling men to register with the U.S. Selective Service—the draft. The laws that would be repealed prevent unregistered men from attending state colleges, receiving state loans or grants, or working for the state.
Possible arguments for and against:
For: Opponents of mandatory registration argue that it infringes upon personal freedoms and the right to privacy by compelling individuals to disclose personal information.
Against: Maintaining the Selective Service registration ensures that there is a ready pool of individuals in the event of a national emergency or military need.
Read in-depth AI arguments for and against HB 55 here.
Support
Thomas Burton of Keene who also submitted text
Julie Smith of Nashua
Curtis Howland of Manchester
Jason Perra of Keene
Oppose
Daniel Richardson of Nashua who also submitted text
Nikola Ordway of Dunbarton
Support
As a 100% combat-disabled veteran, … I believe strongly in the principles of personal freedom, informed choice, and equal treatment under the law. Repealing this act is an important step toward aligning with those values.
Oppose
Everyone enjoying freedoms as American citizens must be held to defend them. Mandatory registration is the minimum benign effort to declare loyalty to the United States and New Hampshire.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 17 at 1:00 pm in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 104-FN
AN ACT relative to requiring an official declaration of war for the activation of the New Hampshire National Guard in a foreign state.
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Tom Mannion (R)
Co-sponsor(s): Rep. Michael Granger (R), Rep. John Potucek (R), Rep. Diane Pauer (R), Rep. Ellen Read (D), Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D), Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière (R), Rep. Heath Howard (D), Rep. Sheila Seidel (R), Rep. Skip Rollins (R), Sen. Victoria Sullivan (R)
Selected quote from the bill:
III. Notwithstanding any other provisions of New Hampshire law, the New Hampshire national guard and any member thereof shall not be released from the state into active duty combat unless the United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution to explicitly call forth the New Hampshire national guard and any member thereof for the enumerated purposes to expressly execute the laws of the union, repel an invasion, or suppress an insurrection. The governor shall take all actions necessary to comply with the requirements of this section.
IV. Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the governor from consenting to the deployment of any New Hampshire national guard member under Title 32 of the United States Code.
V. Nothing in this section shall limit nor prohibit the participation of the New Hampshire national guard in training exercises outside of the continental United States under Title 10 of the United States Code or in training with friendly foreign countries under 10 U.S.C. section 321.
VI. Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the participation of the New Hampshire national guard in the capacity of humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction with military operations pursuant to 10 U.S.C. section 401.
Relevant other law quote:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11
[The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ...
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15
[The Congress shall have Power ...] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call
Whenever—
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
Analysis: This bill limits the activation of the New Hampshire national guard to active duty combat in a foreign state to only those times where the United States Congress has passed an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Read in-depth explanation of HB 104-FN here.
Relevant background:
Title 10 vs Title 32 Orders – What is the Difference? (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
When Congress last used its powers to declare war (National Constitution Center)
Possible arguments for and against:
For: Supporters may argue that past deployments, such as the National Guard's deployment to Iraq under President Bush, bypassed the constitutional requirement for an official declaration of war by Congress. HB 104-FN seeks to correct this issue by ensuring that future deployments adhere strictly to constitutional mandates.
Against: The bill could result in protracted legal battles between state and federal governments, delaying or nullifying its provisions and creating uncertainty in military deployment protocols.
Read in-depth AI arguments for and against HB 104-FN here.
Support
42 people with 13 submitting text
Oppose
2 people with both submitting text
Support
This seems rather simple. In order for the national guard to be used at the federal level for military operations, Congress must actually declare war first.
—Ben Polizotti of Springfield, NH
PTSD is very real, wars are also very expensive, often we need not take side in others’ civil wars. Make history New Hampshire. Let our troops stay stateside to assist here.
—Kathryn Peterson of Nashua, NH
No more enmeshing in myriad global wars.
—Daniel Richardson of Nashua, NH
NH national guard is OUR militia. This is NH department of defense. The rest is the failed War Department of DC.
Unless the United States is involved in an officially declared war, it is only fair to the Guard and their families that they remain stateside so they are ready to help with national needs, such as all the natural disasters that keep happening.
I believe the National Guard is just exactly that: people who guard our nation, not people who are sent to fight in foreign countries.
—Katherine Morgan of Durham, NH
According to U.S. military casualty statistics 482 Army national guard died in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2002 and 2024. The deployment of national guard to these wars was based on false information (weapons of mass destruction WMD in Iraq) and a breach of U.S. law since in neither case was there a formal declaration of war by the president.
—William Maddocks of Amherst, NH
As a military Veteran I strongly support this bill please pass.
Please keep our troops in our state when necessary we strongly support this bill
As a 100% combat-disabled veteran and proud resident of New Hampshire, …. This bill is not just about policy—it is about protecting the rights and dignity of those who have served and ensuring that the sacrifices of the National Guard are made with full constitutional justification.
Oppose
The soldier is a politician’s pawn. Nothing like making him feel more like a disposable pawn by withholding units that should be on his left/right. This bill has the potential to withhold units from deploying formations.
Potential loss of our Guard’s funding and resultant reduction in readiness, because of a political debate in Washington by a few members of Congress with their own agenda, would be devastating to New Hampshire’s role in defending our country when needed.
—Ronald Carvalho of Bedford, NH
Hearing: Friday, Jan 17 at 1:00 pm in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.