A few days ago, Skip posted about an effort to impeach Chris Sununu:
My response is: What the hell is there to investigate?
The GOP “leaders” of the House and Senate should simply tell Chris to end his junk-science state-of-emergency (the purpose of which is to promote and advance the Chris Sununu brand, not to protect public health) and restore our civil liberties, or they will hold an immediate vote to do so. And further advise Chris that even if he gets enough GOP Reps/Senators to vote with the Dems to maintain his state-of-emergency, the Legislature will immediately proceed to impeachment.
Needless to say, Hinch and Bradley-Morse won’t.
To be clear, I am certain Bradley-Morse won’t because … like Chris … they are Republicans-in-name-only who aren’t troubled by despotic government and the deprivation of our civil liberties. And because … like Chris … they believe the state-of-emergency benefits them politically.
I don’t know Hinch, but I am not aware of anything suggesting he supports ending the state-of-emergency. Based on that, I think it’s a safe call to also categorize him as masks-and-lockdowns-for-as-long-as-Chris-says-so.
But since we are talking about impeachment, do you know who else deserves to be impeached? Assuming you read the title, you do. And now I will give you three grounds upon which AG MacDonald should be impeached:
Not in any particular order, let’s start with unconstitutionally terrorizing small businesses:
From the linked article:
Simply Delicious Baking Co. was fined $500 for repeatedly failing to ensure employees wore masks, according to a letter from Associate Attorney General Anne M. Edwards. … Simply Delicious Baking Co. was one of three restaurants fined and two others warned for violations last week. This week, Grumpy’s Bar and Grill in Plaistow was fined a $1,500 civil penalty for various violations. White Mountain Tavern in Lincoln faces a fine of $1,000. Loudon Village Country Store was fined $2,000.
Our government is based on the separation of powers. The Executive Branch … which the Attorney General is part of … has the power to carry out -to execute- the laws. It does not have the power to write its own laws, and then execute those laws however it sees fit.
I’m sure the Sununuphant self-styled, legal-eagles reading this are saying that the Attorney General is simply executing the law … referring to the state-of-emergency law … you know, the law that purports to allow the Executive Branch to do whatever it damn pleases during a state-of-emergency. Well, legal-eagles, I already dealt with that canard in a prior post. The law on which you rely, RSA 4:45 III(e), is unconstitutional:
Our system of government is based on the concept of separating powers between different branches. Simply put, Legislatures write laws, Governors execute the laws the Legislature writes, and the Judiciary interprets these laws.
Governors do NOT get to write laws simply because the Governor … or the Governor and Legislature … or even the Governor and Legislature and Judiciary … think it would be expedient for him to do so. Let alone laws the suspend constitutional rights. Let alone federal constitutional rights. And that is precisely what Sununu did in “Stay-at-Home 2.0” … write laws … including laws that suspend constitutional rights … including federal constitutional rights.
Say it with me, Team-Sununu: to the extent RSA 4:45 III(e) (below) is exercised by the Governor to write laws, which is exactly what he did in “Stay-at-Home 2.0” … RSA 4:45 III(e) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
The Attorney General is an inferior constitutional officer to the Governor. He has no more power than the Governor has under RSA 4:45 III(e), and that statute does not override the constitution and give the Governor the power to write laws (in this case a mask mandate) and impose whatever system of fines he sees fit on those who don’t follow his faux-laws.
The second ground for MacDonald’s impeachment is violating the State constitution (more specifically the separation-of-powers) by “interpreting” the absentee voting law in a manner that substantively rewrote the law. From a prior post:
As noted above, the DOJ’s position is that “any voter who is unable to vote in person in the September 8, 2020 Primary Election or the November 3, 2020 General Election because of illness from COVID-19 or who fears that voting in person may expose himself/herself or others to COVID-19 will be deemed to come within the definition of “disability”.
Note the sleight of hand. The statute says “physical disability.” The DOJ ignores the term “physical.” It does so because the fear of coming down with an illness is … needless to say … NOT a PHYSICAL disability. In other words, the DOJ is rewriting the statute from who is unable to vote there in person by reason of physical disability to “who WOULD PREFER NOT to vote there in person by reason of FEAR OF a physical disability.”
And the third ground is failing to take the position in the pending Conval education funding lawsuit that the Claremont line of decisions were wrongly decided and should be overruled. From a prior post:
What I would like you to take notice of is the New Hampshire Department of Justice’s “defense” of the lawsuit. Attorney General Wonderful’s DOJ did NOT argue that the Claremont line of decisions was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Instead, Wonderful’s DOJ accepted the obviously unconstitutional and equally obviously idiotic Claremont “duties” -that the Legislature is required to jump though a series of judicial hoops to set education policy- and argued that the Legislature did indeed jump through each and every hoop the State Supreme Court has said it must jump through.
That is, Wonderful’s DOJ did what every DOJ before it defending an education funding lawsuit did – TANK it. If you do not challenge the FALSE premise that the Judge -not the Legislature and Governor- has the ultimate say on how much the State sends to municipalities to fund education … as Wonderful’s DOJ did not … and the Judge’s frame of reference is the $3,562.71 per pupil the State sends to municipalities versus average spending of nearly $19,000.00 per student … you have set yourself up to lose.
If you have any other ground(s) upon which you think MacDonald should be impeached, please comment below. Alternatively, if you think you MacDonald’s actions and inactions are defensible, please let us know.