And, after chatting with him a bit ago, is willing to take this to Federal court. I have to laugh because his Motion is the first one that I’ve seen or heard of that can actually use the Claremont “cherish” decision in a positive way. From the top part of the Motion:
Now comes the Plaintiff, Daniel Richard, pro se, in the above-numbered and entitled action, and respectfully request, pursuant to rule 22 of the New Hampshire Supreme Court rules, that the court reconsider its opinion dated July 6, 2022, and in support thereof state as follows:
1. I believe the court did not consider or properly examine certain evidence or correctly apply the law and the New Hampshire Constitution as written; and
2. The New Hampshire Bill of Rights as written; apparent and obvious on its face, will have been changed by the court, by eliminating a due-process provision and constitutional article, if my motion for reconsideration is not granted, thereby creating a Constitutional crisis in the state of New Hampshire.
Standard of review
1. In requesting the New Hampshire’s Supreme court to reexamine its findings, I wish to open my motion for reconsideration by offering its decision in Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor,138 N.H. 183, 186, 635 A.2d 1375, 1377–78 (1993), cited in the case of Wooster v. Plymouth, 62 N.H. 193, 200 (1882) below. (quotations omitted, alterations in original) “In interpreting an article in our constitution, we will give the words the same meaning that they must have had to the electorate on the date the vote was cast. In doing so, we must place [ourselves] as nearly as possible in the situation of the parties at the time the instrument was made, that [we] may gather their intention from the language used, viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.” In Wooster, the court continued: “It was universally understood by the founders of our institutions that jury trial, and the other usual provisions of bills of rights, were not grants of rights to the public body politic, but reservations of private rights of the subject, paramount to all governmental authority; and this constitutional principle has never been abandoned.” Id. at 141.
The rest of the pleading is here. While he quotes other cases, he brings up the same kind of analysis that the Supreme Court of the US used in the last few, now famous, decisions (e.g., Dobbs, the two First Amendment – religious Freedom, the Second Amendment-NYC, and West Virginia vs the EPA) – what does the meaning of the actual words used in the US Constitution stand for and what Powers have been Delegated. Here, it’s the NH Constitution where Dan is using that strategy – and his pleading address that SCONH did not:
Dan Richard – Reconsideration
You might ask why this is needed? Well, let me go out on a limb here – and sound like the current crop of Leftists about the SCOTUS decisions just to be contrarian for a bit. Dan has been doing this case for a couple of years now. Each submission that he send is better and more well-formed than the one before it. If he was a candidate for the US Senate, I would name him Don Bolduc as his writings, historical reach-backs, and logic, have mirrored that of Bolduc’s campaigning. That is to say, not so much in the beginning but has taken the intervening time to really improve his craft (that’s BOTH of them if you missed my analogy). I also know some of the legal and political folks that have been advising him on this – this is a very serious effort by a citizen that believes he has been wronged. Instead of being denied, this case should have ended up as such a serious precedent as that set by the Lambert-Tardiff vs Belknap County Delegation that affirmed the principle that elected officials MUST do their work in open sessions and not behind closed doors.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on GraniteGrok but given the politics, as well as being a former BudComm and suing my school board, I have to read a lot of NH law and I analyze it as any engineer would (yeah, I know, Rick). But the political blogger that I am does wonder about the politics and make no mistake, that what we on the Right would want in a perfect world is a set of Justices that simply rule on the Constitution and then outward to the cases before them, it doesn’t always work that way. All I have to do is have you look at the dissents of the NYC gun case where now-retired Justice Breyer acted like a Legislator in compiling the kinds of gun crime in supporting NYC’s concealed carry case infringements instead of basing his dissent on the Second Amendment. Politicking at play.
Remonstrances ARE part of our NH Constitution – seeking redress from our representatives. Too often we see them NOT wanting to be approached, either in the State Legislature or in local School Boards (the now infamous “Easter Island stone-faced Moa statues”). WHY is it that the SCONH is protecting them against such entreaties? McDonald, the Chief Justice was bad as Sununu’s AG. Chuck Morse is the President of the NH Senate, and Sherm Packard is the Speaker – all three are very powerful political figures.
Was it a political decision? I dunno but I leave the door open for that explanation…
To be continued…
