Mirski: I've Read The Constitution; Boy, Are We In Trouble

Actually, I take this is a great sign for the future.. (4.00 / 5)

When your opponent's first reaction is to cheat, they are telling you that they can't win any other way.

The NH Republican Tea Party lied their way into office in 2010 and the public is not going to forgive them in 2012. Their only path to power is to cheat.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 15:40:16 PM UTC

2010 proved something about the NH legislature (4.00 / 3)

It's much more susceptible to waves than is the Congress.  That's true for a variety of reasons, but the result is that these extremist majorities can be washed away as quickly as they came.  They're giving the public every reason to do that. All NH Democrats have to do in the next two years is remind people who's serious about governing and who's just playing games.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 18:19:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

HCO1 is pretty interesting (0.00 / 0)

Take a look at Mirski's House Concurrent Order HCO1 where he lays out the justification for saying only the legislature has the right to apportion the districts for itself.  It orders(!) the secretary of state to draw up districts as it defines them.

The last time a House Concurrent Order was submitted was in 2002, also over redistricting. The same rationale for assigning this power to the House was used, and it passed the House then, but was killed in the senate.

I've  never heard of a "House Concurrent Order" before. What the heck is it, and where is this defined? Apparently Mirski thinks it has the force of law without the Governor's signature. Is that possible?

---

by: Mike Emm @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 18:04:14 PM UTC

Mirski is making it up (4.00 / 6)

Part II, Article 5 says that the legislature has the authority to make "orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions and instructions", as are not repugnant to the Constitution. Article 44 grants veto power to the governor over "every bill" - a term not used in Article 5.  Article 45 gives the governor veto power over resolutions. I think that the legislature, if it follows Mirski's proposal, would be overstepping its constitutional authority, especially in light of this statement in Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 552 (1981):

Under our constitution, all bills, N.H.Const.Pt. II, Art. 44, or resolutions, N.H.Const.Pt. II, Art. 45, must be presented to the executive for his approval and are therefore subject to his veto. There is no reason to treat rules proposed by administrative [431 A.2d 789] agencies, yet effective only upon approval of both houses, any differently from bills or resolutions. See Opinion of the Justices, 96 N.H. at 521, 83 A.2d at 740-41.

 

Also, in Opinion of the Justices 96 N.H. 517 (N.H. 1950)

There can be no doubt that the traditional method of enacting laws by the passage of bills or resolutions calls for separate action by each house by a voting of its members 'for or against' the bill or resolution. No precedent for any other method of adoption of measures affecting the State as a whole which could have been contemplated by Articles 44 and 45 of the Constitution has been called to our attention.

With all due respect, Speaker O'Brien showed poor judgment when he chose some of his committee chairs and vice chairs.  They have what can be charitably called eccentric interpretations of the Constitution, based on the theory that the legislature has supreme authority over the executive and judicial branches.  

I know that the constitutional debates are not as exciting as some other issues, but the effort to rewrite the Constitution by legislative decree is a dangerous assault on our system of government, a system that has worked well for a couple of hundred years.    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 20:32:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect, Speaker O'Brien showed poor judgment when he chose some of his committee chairs and vice chairs.  They have what can be charitably called eccentric interpretations of the Constitution...

I think he chose these guys because of their eccentric views.

Someone here said the new GOP House leaders are reactionaries. I think just the opposite is true. O'Brien, Bettencourt, Itse, Mirski, Balboni, et.al. are radicals.

But do you know what the legal meaning is of a House Concurrent Order like HCO1? as far as I can see, it has only been used one time in the past, in 2002.

---

by: Mike Emm @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 20:46:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you could be jailed for stupidity (4.00 / 2)

The entire Republican leadership would be behind bars.

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 21:49:29 PM UTC

If Stupidity Hurt, (4.00 / 1)

a lot of them would be crying all the time.

Sure, I voted for less government and less government spending...just NOT the parts that I benefit from!

---

by: Ref @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 23:13:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's gotten to where I (4.00 / 5)

expect a new story of crazy every work day, and sometimes the weekend.

I honestly can't keep up.

(Which, as I've said before, is I'm sure part of the plan.)

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 00:03:29 AM UTC

I have no doubt (4.00 / 3)

that this is to wear us down.
As we say over and over, Republicans complain that government doesn't work, and when they get elected, they make sure that that's true.  They are like the children who wait til their kindergarten comrades have built a nice block tower, and then knock it down, over and over.  Great at getting elected, incapable of governing.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:54:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]