Separation From Power - Granite Grok

Separation From Power

Kathy Sullivan used her scheduled rant in the Union leader this week to warn us about the Republican controlled NH House and its anticipated legislative agenda.  The serpentine theme manufactured to tie her fear-mongering together is a sudden (and I’ll admit unexpected) adoration for the concept of "Separation of Powers."   This is the idea that by dividing authority the vessels of power would jealously guard each of their own and in the process prevent the others from advancing tyranny.

So I guess the Union Leader does publish left wing fantasy fiction in the opinion section.  It’s almost like a riddle.  "If an avid pro government socialist democrat pretends to be concerned with the abuse of government power what does it mean?" 

"It means they are not the ones in power."

So why does a woman who has worked so hard to kneecap state sovereignty and individual liberty, and sell it off in pieces to the central planners in the federal government, think we will take her seriously if she expresses a sudden concern about separation of powers–at a level of government she views as little more than an obstacle to her parties agenda?

It’s all she’s got.

She spends most of her time telling you how the NH House is going to take over the role of the judiciary without ever explaining that they already have the power to vacate the judiciary.  But her biggest complaint seems to be the creation of a legislative committee to determine if laws as written violate the state constitution.

So Sullivan and the democrats do not want a committee in the law making body of state government that want’s to make sure the laws as written (or being written) do not violate your constitutional rights before they are enacted?

This makes sense if you are a left wing lawyer.  Why allow a handful of low paid citizen legislators to prevent unconstitutional laws from getting on the books when you could instead spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars after the fact on an endless strings of lawsuits and court cases before unelected judges? 

That burdensome process might also act to intimidate people from even challenging laws that appear to overstep the limitations of the state constitution, making it more likley that they and other laws like them remain in force simply by inertia and the lack of will or resources to challenge them.

So we can gather from all of this that Sullivan is not concerned with democrat legislators worrying about constitutional limitations to their power, or about separation of powers at all, unless you mean separating the power of the State constitution from its ability to limit the unconstitutional expansion of government. 

 

>