What is the role of the Supreme Court at the state or federal level? The U.S. Supreme Court’s official website says, “First, as the highest court in the land (or state), it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an important role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.”

The oath of office for every New Hampshire civil employee includes,

“I do solemnly swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”

Dan Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire who has brought a case against the state, claims that our election laws have been illegally altered by the executive or legislative branches over the years without the consent of the voters, thereby making them unconstitutional.

We want to thank Robbin MacVittie for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.

Since all government employees are bound to uphold the constitution, both federal and state, the rules, according to the New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2, (Art.) 100, cannot be changed without a two-thirds vote of Granite State voters. Richard’s case alleges that such significant election changes have been implemented in New Hampshire without the consent of the citizens, going as far back as 1942.

To illustrate, here is the original text of the NH State Constitution, Part 2:

(Art.) 30. (Inhabitant Defined.): “And every person, qualified as the constitution provides, shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of being elected into any office or place within this state, in the town, or ward, where he dwelleth and has his home.”

But in 1976, the wording was unconstitutionally amended to read,  “…where he is domiciled.” This changed the definition of not only who can hold office but also who is considered an individual who can vote. Without the consent of the voters, this opened the door for those college students who pay out-of-state tuition, for example, to vote in New Hampshire elections.

Part 1, (Art.) 11, deals with “Elections and Elective Franchises” and has been amended several times without the “consent of the voters,” most significantly in reference to absentee ballots. Originally, every absentee ballot needed to be in a sealed, signed and notarized envelope to ensure that absentee voters were verifiable in the same manner that in-person voters were, for equal protection under the law. Prior to 1979, any absentee ballots without notarized signatures were rejected.

Richard points out that since then, un-notarized absentee ballots have been unconstitutional and should not have been counted.

Meanwhile, voting machines were first introduced in New Hampshire in 1979 on a “trial” basis. Richard points out that Part 2, (Art.) 32, of the NH State Constitution, requires the moderator in each voting district to “sort and count” the votes in order to certify the results. Machines can usually count the votes but cannot sort them. That needs to be done by a human being, specifically the moderator.

And the reliability of voting machines has been called into question by instances like the recount of votes and audit of voting machines after the 2020 election in Windham, which demonstrated wide discrepancies, particularly due to folds in absentee ballots. Certain states, like Massachusetts and Arizona, have adopted the use of voting machines by having them authorized by the consent of their voters.

The State of New Hampshire has not.  So far, the state Supreme Court has put off addressing these concerns, which are very important for the integrity of our voting system.

Why?

 

The post Election Laws Have Been Changed without Our Consent appeared first on Granite Grok.

My apologies for revisiting this topic so soon, but this was impossible to pass—the grotesque institutionalization of post-birth abortion as a kindness. Ethicists have long proposed letting parents end their young children, but ‘experts’ are asking permission to call it assisted suicide.

Sort of – from Igor Chudov.

 

I apologize for using the oxymoronic term “assisted suicide for babies” in the title. An infant is not self-aware and cannot “commit suicide.” Infants want to live, eat, and be held by their parents. And yet, the Quebec College of Physicians wants to expand the Canadian “Medical Assistance in Dying” program to infants.

Chudov notes plenty of issues, not just the fact that infants -even one-year-olds – are capable of understanding what life is such that they could request someone end it. And how no one knows how they sense or perceive pain, not really.

He also has details about characters who appear to love the idea of encouraging approving requests to die. These angels of mercy death must be beside themselves over such good fortune. Not only are governments embracing assisted suicide – medically assisted dying – but they are also broadening its reach.

And, as we’ve noted in several pieces, this newfound love of medically assisted death has done wonders for the availability of healthy organs for transplants. Despite being equipped with a growing DNA record of the populace, a political enemies list, a surveillance state, and the legislative authority to convince almost anyone they need to die, no one should be concerned. Noting inappropriate could possibly happen when the compassionate state needs a heart for a ranking party member or one of their children. Sorry, did I type that last part out loud?

Nothing to see here. No slippery slopes as far as your donated cornea can see.

Note: Experts in Quebec have also suggested that assisted suicide is appropriate for the homeless and the poor. What’s next, people who don’t speak French?

The voice is (obviously) the translator.

 

 

The post College of Physicians Reccomends MAiD for Children Up to a Year Old appeared first on Granite Grok.

Back in August, Steve counseled this: “If You Support Mike Pence, You Should Maybe, Probably Stop …“. Me, too, by the way. The result? Too many of you listened, heard, and took that advice (heh!).

Emphasis mine, reformatted:

With three months to go before the Iowa caucuses that he has staked his campaign on, former Vice President Mike Pence faces mounting debt and lagging poll numbers that are forcing questions about not only whether he will qualify for the next debate, but whether it makes sense for him to remain in the race until then.

The former Veep is in the second tier of Republican candidates at 3.8% in the aggregated RealClearPolitics polling as of Saturday. In contrast, Trump is at 59.1%

Pence ended September with just $1.18 million left in his campaign account, a strikingly low number for a presidential contest and far less than his rivals, new filings show. His campaign also has $621,000 in debt — more than half the cash he had remaining — and is scrambling to meet donor thresholds for the Nov. 8 debate. While he would likely meet the debate’s polling requirements, Pence has struggled to gain traction and is polling in the low single digits nationally, with no sign of momentum.

Former President Donald Trump, meanwhile, is leading every one of his rivals by at least 40 points in national polls and ended September with $37.5 million on hand.

Let’s face it – the electorate, thus far, is not enamored with an Establishment GOP guy who folded like a cheap suit when the pressure was applied (by the militant gays and corporations that threatened him after he signed the Indiana Law that protected religion).

I understand that he’s a nice guy in person, but I want a brawler out in front of me. Not the living physical embodiment of a cartoon character, Race Bannon, who doesn’t measure up, doesn’t live up even to the cartoon with respect to courage.

There are always those who linger too long in politics, just like former stars in athletics who stay in the game well after their prime. Yes, some for the money, but others still believe they’ve “got it” for one more go-round until Life cleans their clock. Finally humbled, they are forced into retirement.

Pence should take a hint. So should Asa “Who? Why?” Hutchinson at 0.4%.

And WHY is Sununu, given his “Anyone with >5% polling approval should drop out,” still squiring around Chubs “I’m Establishment too!” Christie.Christie. Is it because he is another Never-Trumper? Can there be any other reason?

 

HT |  Associated Press

The post Back in August, Steve Counseled This: “If You Support Mike Pence You Should Maybe, Probably Stop …”. And? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Rachel Alexander, The Star News Network Favorito said he found that counties had destroyed 1.7 million ballot images in violation of the law, and the surveillance video of drop boxes for 181,000 ballots was deleted, violating the law. The election... Tom Bowler

Ep. 32 You’ll be shocked to learn this, but it turns out the whole George Floyd story was a lie. pic.twitter.com/4vDXBStHf5 — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 20, 2023 Tom Bowler