NH House Majority - Leadership Statement on Supreme Court Decision Regarding HB 89

The following statement was issued by House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt (r-Salem) in response to today's decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court that HB 89, as passed by the House, violates the Separation of Powers Clause and is unconstitutional.  

"HB89 is not about usurping the powers of the executive branch, but rather it is about protecting the people of New Hampshire against Obamacare, unfunded mandates and the tremendous costs associated with a program that our taxpayers will have to pay for out of their own pockets.  

The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s opinion that HB 89 is unconstitutional represents an egregious example of judicial activism and an abandonment of originalism in judicial interpretation.  The Court’s opinion is based on a completely untenable reading of Part II, Article 41.   While the justices claimed that history revealed that legislation like HB 89 usurped the governor’s powers under Part II, Article 41, they simply ignored the historical evidence presented in the speaker’s and majority leader’s brief that the 1964 amendment to Part II, Article 41 was not intended to give the governor constitutional authority over the State’s civil officers. 

Moreover, the Court did not cite a single source of New Hampshire legal authority or history to support its claim.  Instead, as the Court did in the Claremont II case where it wrote a 1989 decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court into Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire constitution, the Court wrote court decisions from Alabama and Mississippi and elsewhere into Part II, Article 41.     

Rather than defining the executive power based on what the voters of this State intended when they amended Part II, Article 41 in 1966, the Supreme Court has rewritten Part II, Article 41 to give the governor powers which the governor was never intended to have," said Bettencourt.

    Further inquiries should be directed to House Legal Counsel Edward Mosca 603-289-3662

New Hampshire Democrats Statement on Supreme Court Declaring HB89 Unconstitutional

NH Supreme Court: O'Brien and Bettencourt need a civics lesson! 

Concord, NH - Today, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that HB 89 violates the Separation of Powers Clause and is unconstitutional.  HB89 was passed by House Republicans in an effort to prevent vital cost saving reforms of the Affordable Care Act from being implemented for the people of New Hampshire. 

"Today's decision was the New Hampshire Supreme Court standing courageously and firmly for the constitutional principal of the separation of powers against the unconstitutional legislative activism practiced by Speaker O'Brien and Majority Leader Bettencourt. The Speaker and Majority Leader may not like our form of government or our state Constitution, but it is a form of government that has served New Hampshire well for over 200 years, and it is a Constitution which they are sworn to uphold," said Harrell Kirstein, press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

"The Supreme Court has protected the people of New Hampshire from an unconstitutional effort by the legislature to violate the separation of powers doctrine.  It is a well-reasoned decision based on New Hampshire precedent, history of the New Hampshire Constitution and constitutional conventions, and the plain language of the New Hampshire Constitution," continued Kirstein.  "Instead of keeping their promise to the voters and working on job creation, O'Brien and Bettencourt are focused like a laser beam on their reckless and irresponsible Tea Party agenda."

Constitutional Lawyers Pledge Court Fight if Obama Signs Proposed Health Care Plan

Bristol, Va./Tenn.  (Nov. 3, 2009) –  Constitutional lawyers have pledge to challenge the proposed health care plan in federal court the very day President Obama signs it, the founder of the 10 Amendment Foundation announced today.

"After considerable study and analysis of the bill regarding the constitutional issues involved, our board of trustees voted today to challenge the health care plan on constitutional grounds the very hour it becomes law," said Strother Smith, founder of the 10th Amendment Foundation, based in Bristol, Va.

 "We have been working with attorneys general and well-placed Constitutional attorneys in several states and are confident that we will have strong multi-state participation if we ask for it."

Smith said the proposed health care plan violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Smith has been an attorney for 43 years and has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He founded the foundation as a result of networking that resulted from the April 15 tea parties in Virginia and Tennessee, and it has chapters in several states.

"This health care plan violates many parts of the constitution," Smith said. "There is absolutely NO paragraph, word, or phrase in the Constitution that can be stretched far enough to allow the federal government to have any say whatsoever over health care delivery or health care insurance for any individual (except for Federal employment, in or out of the military, or those in Federal incarceration)."

The Web site of the foundation is http://www.10thamendmentfoundation.org.

The web site with detailed information about  the constitutional problems with the health care plan is:

http://www.10thamendmentfoundation.org/National_Healthcare.html.

"We would file what is known as a Bill of Complaint in federal court in Roanoke, asking for a declartory judgment and mandamus, ruling that the health care plan is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 14th and 16th Amendments to the Constitution."

Smith said the mandamus action should have the effect of preventing the federal government from putting any element of the health care plan into action until its merits have decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Will Obama Nominee Respect The Constitution?

WASHINGTON, DC – Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) Executive Director Michael Thielen today released the following statement concerning news reports of the retirement of Associate Justice David Souter:

“President Obama has said he wants to lead all Americans and this is an opportunity for him to do so by putting forward a nominee who respects the Constitution and understands the job of a judge is to interpret the law as it is written as opposed to create it.

Unfortunately, we must refer back to Obama’s record in the Senate when he opposed both Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, participating in a filibuster against Alito. RNLA would hope President Obama doesn’t go against his promises to bring this nation together by putting forward an activist nominee who would be unacceptable to the majority of our nation’s citizens and elected representatives.”

BACKGROUND:

Obama Voted Against Confirming Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.’s Nomination To Be Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court. (Roberts Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Voted Against Confirming Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr.’s Nomination To The U.S. Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination – Confirmation, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Voted To Filibuster Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (Alito Cloture Vote, CQ Vote #1: Motion Passed 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Obama Voted Nay)