New Hampshire House Bill CACR12

New Hampshire 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/28/23
• Refer: 11/28/23
• Report DNP: 2/21/24

Caption

Relating to the definition of the word "cherish." Providing that the 1784 word "cherish" shall be replaced by the 2024 word "cherish."

Impact

If approved, this amendment will not only update the language of the Constitution but will also reinforce the state's responsibility to promote education and regulate corporations. It aims to prevent monopolistic behaviors and ensure fair competition in trade and industries. The proposal emphasizes the legislators' duty to protect educational institutions and public schools from being financially supported by religious sects, which is a significant aspect of the state's constitutional foundation regarding education and governance.

Summary

CACR12 presents a proposal for a constitutional amendment to redefine the term "cherish" as it appears in Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The amendment seeks to replace the original 1784 definition with a contemporary 2024 interpretation while maintaining the core commitment to educational interests and the prevention of monopolistic practices within the state. This modification reflects a broader intention to ensure that the state's legislative duties in promoting education and fair competition remain relevant to current societal contexts.

Sentiment

The sentiment around CACR12 appears to be generally supportive among proponents who recognize the importance of updating the Constitution to reflect modern values and interpretations. Supporters argue that the amendment is necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's education system and to uphold public interests against corporate monopolization. However, there are concerns from some segments that changing historical language could lead to unintended consequences or misinterpretations in the future.

Contention

A notable point of contention surrounding CACR12 relates to the implications of modifying a historical definition in a constitutional document. Critics worry that simplifying the language could obscure important nuances and weaken the legal framework intended to protect the public good from corporate influence. Additionally, the proposed amendment's passage is contingent on statewide voter approval during the general election, which introduces another layer of public engagement and potential debate.