Let's get that pesky state supreme court out of the way.

I don't understand what it's trying to do. (0.00 / 0)

The only thing that it seems to clearly accomplish is: the Supreme Court of New Hampshire would no longer advise the legislature on whether a proposed law appears to be constitutional.

But once the legislature enacts the bill, it will result in "cases in controversy between persons arising under [a law] previously established."  Then SCONH would have the responsibility to determine whether the new law could be enforced.

Am I missing some subtlety ?

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:08:00 AM UTC

The final sentence says it all (4.00 / 1)

I could be mistaken, but the final sentence would imply that the judicial review of the constitutionality of a NH law would not longer be in place.  In essence, "We (the legislature) passed the law; therefore, it is constitutional."

It is well known that this band of freaks loathes the courts because  they actually read the (non-redacted) state constitution.  

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

---

by: cblodg @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:12:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, once we get rid of the bloviating in the text maybe it (4.00 / 1)

becomes more clear.

"The supreme court has final authority on the constitutionality of judicial acts. The general court has final authority on the constitutionality of legislative acts."

That simply sets up a food fight. The legislature says: "We declare that the Lock Up Liberals law is constitutional." The Supreme Court says, "We declare that every challenge to state authority under the Lock Up Liberals law wins. The Constitution preserves rights, and although we cannot opine on legislative acts, we are required to uphold the Constitution."

(Shortly thereafter the Executive Branch will declare that all acts of government are executive, and therefore the Governor and Council decide whether the acts themselves are Constitutional.)

It's all a question of Becks and challenges.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:23:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Constitutional crisis (4.00 / 1)

Aside from being an enormous breach of one of the defining and most enduring aspects of our governmental system for the past two centuries, this bill sets up a potential irreconcilable constitutional crisis.

According to your reading, the Supreme Court cannot advise on constitutionality before legislative action, but retains the right to determine constitutionality of legislation once enacted.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that many current--and sadly future--members of the General Court may have a different opinion. If they find themselves in the majority in the future--something that would be increasingly unlikely were it not for their attempts to make it nearly illegal for people to vote against them--I'm sure the General Court would move to interpret Article 74-a.

In that case, we could end up with the Supreme Court following your logic to determine that it has the right to determine the constitutionality of enacted legislation as per 74-a, with the General Court claiming that it has the right to do so. I don't know how that crisis would be resolved.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 20:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This should be called (0.00 / 0)

"The Checks and Balances Part of the Constitution Stinks" proposal.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:05:50 PM UTC

Horrifying. (0.00 / 0)

I almost dread coming to this site daily to read the latest bill that this kangaroo legislature is trying to pass.  I really hope that NH voters understand what they did in the last election.

---

by: unhhockey @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 15:11:52 PM UTC

Sadly (0.00 / 0)

It's already too late for them if they're realizing it now.

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

---

by: cblodg @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 16:58:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The ultimate in education funding amendments? (0.00 / 0)

I think this may be the "nuclear option" if they can't get an education funding amendment passed that guts the Claremont decision in a more targeted way.

---

by: The Money Magician @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 15:35:19 PM UTC

Anti-democratic system (4.00 / 1)

This bunch just doesn't like our form of government. They want to establish an oligarchical system that gives the legislature unchecked authority. I hope that enough Republicans in the House and Senate retain enough common sense - and respect for our system of checks and balances - that this does not get the voter necessary to go on the ballot.

And if any Democrats support this, they should have their heads examined.  



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 15:40:40 PM UTC

The sponsors (0.00 / 0)

It's interesting to see who the sponsors are for this bill. They are members of O'Brien's leadership team, not a bunch of wacky freshman backbenchers.

Sorg is vice chairman of the Judiciary committee.
Mirski is chairman of Leg Admin and Redistricting
McGuire is a member of Finance, the most important committee
Ingbretson is chairman of Redress of Grievances

---

by: Mike Emm @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 16:24:28 PM UTC

There's a difference (4.00 / 3)

in this legislature?

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 16:28:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]