The Aug. 19 “Capital Beat” column by Ethan DeWitt featured reports of two of my colleagues attempting to come up with a protection program for our New Hampshire vendors, who might become involved with the so-called interstate sales tax that the Supreme Court sent back to the lower court for revision.
Since interstate commerce has its origin in the Constitution, where Congress has been delegated sole jurisdiction and authority to administer interstate commerce, the several states do not have any jurisdiction to usurp such a constitutional mandate.
Accordingly, New Hampshire has no jurisdiction to expend taxpayer revenue on such so-called preventative legislation. That is the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and it is my understanding that Congress is addressing this issue at this time.
In any event, this is the issue that prompted Gov. Chris Sununu to call for the recent special session, which was not needed and was rejected by the majority in the House. I was one who voted against the proposed unnecessary legislation, as it would have opened the door to negotiation and invited discussion of potential contractual relationship with foreign states.
We do not need to take such a risk and ignore the current RSA 382-A: 3-501, which now prevails and has for several years.
It was 1966 when President Lyndon Johnson removed the silver coins from circulation and thus there was no lawful money in circulation. Yes, there was “legal tender, that is the paper Federal Reserve notes, which have plainly printed on them the word “note,” thus an instrument of indebtedness. Accordingly, Congress, having been delegated jurisdiction over interstate commerce, had to come up with a means for commerce to continue between the several states. They did so with the Tax Lien Act of 1966, wherein the Uniform Commercial Code became the sole and exclusive protocol for all commercial business between government and the several states. The congressional enactment for commercial paper to be used as a means for settlement and discharge (not payment) of all obligations had Supreme Court mandate that when using commercial paper to discharge it’s obligations, government becomes a mere corporation and has standing like any other corporation. This is known as the Clearfield Doctrine, which resulted from Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, using commercial paper and not lawful money.
All current New Hampshire vendors are protected from any foreign states attempting to impose foreign sales tax upon them by the following: 382-A: 3-501 Presentment.
As is clear in the RSA, there must be a “holder-in-due-course” for a “presentment” to be made and the only one who can make a “presentment” is one who holds an “instrument” or contract that has the other party’s original signature signed with ink. No copy is acceptable. Accordingly, should any New Hampshire internet vendor get a “presentment” from a foreign state, he simply writes upon the “presentment”: acceptance refused pursuant to RSA 382-A:3-501, U.C.C. 3-501, copy the “presentment” and return the original to its source.
It is doubtful that any foreign state will try to overcome the mandates of the Uniform Commercial Code, as all states have enacted legislation similar to ours. Hopefully this will relieve any concerns that may now exist and, with all due respect, I hope my colleagues abandon their efforts to act outside their jurisdiction.
We need less costly government not more, as this representative has striven to prevent.
(Dick Marple of Hooksett represents Merrimack District 24 in the N.H. House of Representatives.)