And the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in on Day One

Lawsuit over school choice program has new life thanks to constitutional amendment

A six-year-old state law that allows businesses to claim a tax deduction for donations to a private school scholarship fund could face another court challenge, now that voters have overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution. “On the 2012 voucher bill, I think there’s a good deal of energy out there to challenge it again and getting the court to decide it on the merits,” said former state Board of Education member Bill Duncan on Wednesday. “But it’s hard to tell if the same marshaling of resources can happen again anytime soon.”

As I said when people asked me about the Constitutional ballot initiatives (re: taxpayers having standing to sue and privacy), if it was “limited” to good and useful purposes, I was fine with it but that it could be used by the other side for purposes nefarious.  This is one, I believe. This also proves that one of the watch phrases Democrats use all the time when something THEY pass is then challenged, “BUT IT’S SETTLED LAW!!!!” (waa-waa-waa) is just propaganda.  Nothing is settled, ever, in politics and the Democrats are showing it now.

And never, EVER, are folks like Bill Duncan FOR people to have more choices in their lives (unless, the “pro-choice” is a woman killing the unborn child in her womb). With this, he again shows that Government, and ONLY Government, is entitled to tax monies for THEIR education of YOUR child.  Selfish, isn’t it, that the Democrats (and the union $$ that fund them) would want to act this way, eh?

So instead of letting the democratic legislative process proceed, Duncan want to use the pathway the Democrats have ALWAYS used – if they can’t win at the ballot box, go to the Judiciary (“…getting the court to decide it on the merits“).  They do it at the national level and here’s a good example at the local level.  Judge shop an issue and then sue – just look at the lawsuit over SB3, the bill that simply existed to tighten up the definition of domicile, residency, and who was legally able to vote.

Republicans seldom use this tactic; maybe they should up the ante to the Democrat level and see how long before Democrats go “ok, let’s not either of us do this”.  I don’t see either happening (NH GOPers having the stones to do it or the Dems giving it up) but it would be interesting to watch and listening to the howls of the Dems about how mean the Republicans have become (Alinksky’s Rule #8). Turning it into a Cloward-Piven moment would be jolly good fun as well!

(H/T: Union Leader)