How Low Can Danny Go? … Feltes Tramples the Constitution in Order to Reinstitute Voter-Fraud - Granite Grok

How Low Can Danny Go? … Feltes Tramples the Constitution in Order to Reinstitute Voter-Fraud

Dirty Dan Feltes

Steve already posted about this HERE. But I have a few things I want to say about it, so better late than never.

The most important aspect of our system of government in terms of keeping government in check and thereby keeping us free is the separation of powers. The framers of our State and federal constitutions agreed with Lord Acton that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and structured government so that its power would be divided between different branches, which would act as checks on each other. As James Madison explained in Federalist #51:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Ans as the late, great Justice Scalia explained over 200 years later:

“Consider, for example, the following sterling provisions of a modern bill of rights:

“Every citizen.., has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations for improving their activity, and to criticise shortcomings in their work. . . Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account.

“[C]itizens… are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations. Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets, and squares at the disposal of the.., people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

“Citizens …are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship, or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

“Wonderful stuff. These were provisions of the 1977 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  They were not worth the paper they were printed on, as are the human rights guarantees of a large number of still-extant countries governed by Presidents-for-Life. They are what the Framers of our Constitution called “parchment guarantees,” because the real constitutions of those countries-the provisions that establish the institutions of government-do not prevent the centralization of power in one man or one party, thus enabling the guarantees to be ignored. Structure is everything.

Under our constitutional system, the Legislature writes the laws and the Executive “executes” the laws that the Legislature writes. If one Legislature does not like a law enacted under a previous Legislature, the constitutional remedy is to enact a new law that repeals the old law. It is NOT to prevent the Executive from executing the law. Yet that is exactly what Dan Feltes (aka #DirtyDanny and #FlatulentFeltes) has done:

From the linked article:

House and Senate budget writers cut $400,000 from litigation funds requested by Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, touching off a harsh exchange between Gov. Chris Sununu and one of his 2020 Democratic opponents. …

Senate Majority Leader Dan Feltes, D-Concord, and others on the panel said the vote was meant to send a message that lawmakers are unhappy with how much the state has been spending to defend two lawsuits against voter residency laws that Democrats had vigorously opposed.

“The taxpayers should not have their dollars spent paying partisan lawyers to defend partisan litigation,” said Feltes, who has filed to run against Sununu.

To repeat, under our constitutional system #FlatulentFeltes’ remedy is to enact a law that repeals the Clean-Election laws that he finds objectionable. But #FlatulentFeltes does not have the votes to do so, so he is trying to prevent the Executive Branch from executing the law.

Defending a law that is challenged in court is part of the Executive’s constitutional duty to “execute” the laws. Otherwise, the Executive could avoid its constitutional duty by failing to defend laws that it does not want to execute and letting the party or parties challenging the law win by default.

Here, #FlatulentFeltes is trying to prevent the Governor from defending lawsuits brought by the New Hampshire Democrat Party … and its litigation arm, the New Hampshire ACLU … against laws that made drive-by voting more difficult and defined … as EVERY OTHER State does … the act of voting in New Hampshire a declaration of residency in New Hampshire (in other words with the right to vote comes the responsibilities of being resident). Stated more succinctly, the Flatulent-One is trampling the constitution in order to reinstitute Voter-Fraud.

Needless to say, the way our government and elections are supposed to work is that #FlatulentFeltes can and should be making the reinstitution of Voter-Fraud part of his campaign for Governor. He is not doing so because (1) he needs these votes to win (nonresidents are the reason Maggie Hassan and NOT Kelly Ayotte is representing New Hampshire in the United States Senate) and (2) because he knows that New Hampshire voters do NOT want nonresidents voting in their elections and negating their votes.

This should be a wake-up call to every voter in New Hampshire … #FaltulentFeltes does not believe in the separation of powers … and it is fair to assume that as Governor he would conduct himself accordingly.

>