Follow by Email

Friday, May 4, 2012

Concurrent Legislative & Judicial Power News » Vote for this!!  

The above article appeared in the unionleader 5/3/12; "quotes from article appear in italics"

"Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be." Sydney J. Harris

After heated debates and angry constituents brought numerous complaints to legislators about items ruled on in and similar to cases like this one where the supreme court ruled in its own favor; and the lack of regulatory rule-making applied across the board in all New Hampshire Courts, the courts appear to have finally backed down a bit and have offer a reasonable solution "concurrent Legislative and Judicial Powers" to "regulate court administrative and procedural matters by statute."

The statute/law unless it violated the U.S. or N.H. Constitution; should of course win because the Court's do NOT make laws in this country the legislators do. Pro Se litigants (meaning they represent themselves because for most people lawyers are to expensive) can hardly make sense of the rules in most of these courts, moreover, they are not consistent from court to court and that is NOT EQUAL ACCESS TO THE LAW.

VOTERS: The "1978 constitutional amendment giving the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unilateral authority to make rules governing the administration of all state courts and the “practice and procedure” to be followed in the courts." Is not working, they are more often incomprehensible and I am now a law student; the average person is not getting a fair hearing; because, the Chief Justice has failed to discharge his/her duty faithfully ensuring that all courts are run the same and consistently; and these duties/complaints have extended past merely processing cases.

The extent that our Courts are corrupt can seen by the number of people complaining; the lack of accessibility for instance compare the NH site to say GA's , you can find cases more easily and obtain records in similar matter to better research just for starters in GA who of course has its own problems; but, it gives litigants specifically Pro Se litigants better resources to work with.  Furthermore, in 2004, "the Court blocked the Attorney General's Office from issuing a voters' guide explaining the constitutional question." Again, not providing the citizens with information to make a reasonable choice.

The separation-of-powers doctrine was designed to limit the 3 branches of the government; each branches has defined powers to "check" the powers of the other branches. This idea was simply called "separation of powers" designed to prevent abuses endured under the crown of England; Britain still does not have strict separation of powers.

In America, the public has a right to accountability over their legislators, courts and the executive branches of its government, their dealings and their accounting of how they receive and spend our money.

I can not agree with Justice Lynn's statement that the Judicial branch would not have a leader or it would in some way separate the court system; the court system is not "unified" now, because, as he stated "each level of court made its own rules" clearly relaying there is no leader except possibly over the interpretation of the laws made by legislators; but, even that can be questioned when parents are not receiving information that a fact finder is relying on in determining the fate of their child; a decision make by the Supreme Court in Ross vs. Gadwah, one that the lower courts more often than not fail to recognize. And that litigants can hardly afford to have their cases appealed or understand the rules; and lawyers can not expect consistency in filing or application of the law across the board, and not because its misinterpreted as above it is often overlooked or blatantly ignored.

The COMPROMISE “concurrent power” with the legislative branch to regulate court issues by statute" if it clarifies: "In the event of a conflict between a statute and a court rule, the statute, if not otherwise contrary to this constitution, shall prevail over the rule."  My fellow constituents “The majority practice around the country is in essence what the court has proposed,” and Justice Lynn concurs because the Justice department knows their reign of absolute control without oversight is over.

“There may have been misunderstanding historically” about the limits of judicial rule-making, said Hicks, “but it was before his time; here we should be very concerned, it is the judicial branch if not every branch that is suppose to understand the history behind how our laws developed in this country.

The U.S. constitution does obligated that the branches work together to balance each other out and avoid fraud; that's their job and the Judicial branch has finally had the conscience to do the right thing and represent the people, instead of their self-center control issues, as seen in thankfully retired Justice John Broderick and Justice Joseph Nadeau, who, of course oppose it.

Nixon's assertion that "Part 1 Article 35 of the constitution, being designed specifically to provide that the judges of the Supreme Court do not have to be and should not be unduly influenced by any outside forces, political, legislative or executive.” Is true only to the extent in the way the bill was originally introduced; the compromised bill proposal does not interfere with the Court's "decision" making power's; it in facts deals with "just" how they are run, when they are open, and consistent understandable and applicable rules across the board; something that if the Court and Legislators not all of whom are former Judges or Lawyers will be able to make plain so people can have equal access in obtaining justice from a Judicial System with only two-tiers and not three as in most other states.

To get this on the ballot in November, it has to pass the Senate by 3/5 majority so contact them now and tell them to pass it, as compromised!  And in November be sure to read the wording carefully and repeal it if the compromise makes the ballot.

To hear other opinions from consitutents see: 
"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." Jonathan Swift

No comments:

Post a Comment