Today, we learned that we voted either Concur, Non-Concur, or Non-Concur with Committee of Conference (CoC) on 93 House bills and 20 Senate bills. Most bills passed the recommended motion of the committee chair with a voice vote. Some bills and their amendments were debated, and others were voted on with just a brief explanation of what the Senate’s fingerprints… I mean, amendments… were tacked onto the bills.

All in all, the House didn’t seem to mind a few word changes or adding or removing certain items… it was the tacking on of whole other bills that sent them to CoC land.

We learned that most of the returned House bills that we non-concurred on, or those House bills that were already designated to go to Committee of Conference, had some Senate bill tacked onto it that the House had already rejected or tabled. In fact, SB499, the bill that expands the school free and reduced breakfast and lunch program, along with making it available in the summer, and also expanding food assistance to eligible older adults and people with disabilities, was not only sent to the House on its own, but also tucked into HB1278. A similar House bill, HB1212,was already tabled in the House on 4/11/24. Seems like these free school meal bills keep repeating on us like a bad hotdog.

We learned that the first bill concurred today was HB185, relative to parental rights and responsibilities based on shared parenting. Republicans have been trying to pass this shared parenting legislation for over a decade, and finally, we got it done. Of course House Democrats were opposed to it. The bill also included language to require school governing bodies to post on their official website the amount of funds received by the state, either by allocation or grant. The bill was concurred 191Y-171N.

We also learned that HB1018 will go to a Committee of Conference (if the Senate accedes). The House voted Non-Concur CoC by a voice vote after a Concur vote failed 179Y-190N and a Non-Concur vote failed 180Y-190N.HB1018 was relative to on-premise and off-premise liquor licenses…simple right? But the Senate tacked on a current use bill (SB504) which provides that the owner of land in current use and designated as open space may post that such land is restricted to use for public recreation only and expands grounds for criminal trespass to include violation of open space land posted for recreational use only and when associated with a violation of the controlled drug act or human trafficking. Now why would the Senate do that? Well, SB504 (the current use bill) came to the House only to be amended to include the House version of bail reform (HB318). Well, why did they do that? It’s because the Senate amended the House version of HB318, which is going to a Committee of Conference (if the Senate accedes), which puts the Senate bill version in jeopardy. So everyone is tacking the language of bills that they want into bills that the other body may want in hopes of getting it passed. It can be very confusing… and that is why they call this “silly season”.

We learned that the Senate amended HB1633, cannabis legalization bill, was ultimately non-concurred with a committee of conference with a division vote of 261Y-108N. The House did not like the Senate version, and if the Senate accedes to having a CoC then they will have to come up with some sort of compromise next week or it’s dead. There were some who said we should pass this version and fix it later, especially since it doesn’t take effect for two years. There were others who didn’t think a state solution (like the liquor store model) was the right idea. Then there were House members who didn’t like either the House or Senate version. Rep. Anita Burroughs (D-Bartlett) spoke against the Concur motion and remarked, “I agree with my esteemed colleague [Commerce Chair Rep. Hunt (R-Rindge)] that a gummy before going to bed would be better than a drink because I only drink on legislative days.” That did get a good laugh. Visit Tandy’s after House session and count how many legislators you see there. (Wink)

We learned that the Senate changes to HB1186 was concurred with a roll call vote of 190Y-179N. The vote was basically on party lines. This bill was relative to firearm purchaser privacy. This bill prohibits the assigning of a specific merchant code to the sale of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. This bill further provides a mechanism for enforcement of this prohibition. The folks voting in favor of this bill basically do not want the government tracking what we buy by putting little notation on our credit card purchases. Nah… we don’t want to be a part of that… but House Democrats do… because of “public safety” or something. Our friend Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) also just wants to make sure there’s no fraudulent activity going on with your credit card. I really didn’t know he cared so much about my purchases… how thoughtful.

We learned that HB115 brought us yet another turn at changing the date of the state primary. It would have moved our state primary to June. The House did not concur with this attempt to move the state primary and voted down the Concur motion 159Y-202N. A Non Concur motion passed on a voice vote. The issue is now dead. June would have been a good time to have the state primary because that is when the out of state “resident” voters at our college campuses are not around to “participate”, if you know what I mean.

We learned that HB1410, relative to certain professional licenses and relative to the board of optometry and the regulation of optometry, was tabled 192Y-170N. HB1410 was amended by the Senate to include SB440 since SB440 was Tabled in the House last week. So the Senate made another stab at trying to get this language passed. It would have increased the scope of practice of optometrists to include four new procedures that they currently cannot perform. This ostensibly is meant to alleviate the shortage of people performing those procedures. The ophthalmologists would have none of it, though, and they lobbied furiously to prevent passage of the bill. Optometrists claim they are trained in these procedures and the bill language required them to get more extensive training as well. In the end, we did not see this getting passed.

We learned that the “safe haven” bill was concurred 185Y-174N. The debate regarding this bill centered around an exclusionary clause. This means that if a child is dropped off and it had been abused, that the person handing off the child could not be prosecuted. The opponents of the bill wanted to make sure that abusers would be prosecuted and held accountable for their crimes. The proponents of the bill just want the babies to be dropped off to be taken care of and they claim that people would be more likely to leave the child if they knew they wouldn’t get in trouble for doing so or for whatever they’d done. Testimony during debate indicated that no other state with safe haven laws (or baby box drop offs) prosecute people who drop off babies.

We further learned that HB1215 was non concurred. This bill included language that would have allowed the Town of Hampton to discontinue a particular highway in order to lease that property. Currently, if there is a road in town that the town wants to change the designation (class 6 to class 5, etc.), it goes on a warrant article in a town meeting. This bill would allow the select board to make that decision. House members voted No on concurrence 172Y-180N (roll called) and sent this to a committee of conference on a voice vote.

We also learned that another House member changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Today the Republican Caucus welcomed Rep. Sherry Gould (R-Bradford, Henniker, Warner) to their side of the House.

Finally, we learned that next week, we’re taking a session break while House and Senate members duke it out in Committees of Conference while listening to The Rolling Stones sing “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” We’ll be back on June 13th, ready to vote on Committee of Conference reports. See you then!

 

Editor: A quick thanks to Judy for all of these updates. I’m appending this week’s attendance list to this because we already have a ton of extra content this morning. There were very few roll call votes this week, which is why the numbers are so low, but again, the YTD missed vote totals on the right should interest voters.

5/30		YTD
7	Sanborn, Laurie (R, Bedford)	251
7	O’Hara, Travis (R, Belmont)	200
7	Brouillard, Jacob (R, Nottingham)	76
7	Crawford, Karel (R, Moultonborough)	76
7	Summers, James (R, Newton)	64
7	Dumais, Russell (R, Gilford)	49
3	Trottier, Douglas (R, Belmont)	149
3	Roy, Terry (R, Deerfield)	27
1	Guthrie, Joseph (R, Hampstead)	54
1	Packard, Sherman (R, Londonderry)	22

The post So Kids, What Did We Learn From This Week’s House Session (5/30/24)? appeared first on Granite Grok.

America is in need of another declaration! Our first was presented in a written form, but in today’s fast-paced world, ears are more adaptable to our living styles. As with America’s first declaration, today’s version also declares an abrupt turnaround from what is current, and in both instances, America’s abrupt turnaround comes from a highly credible source.

Concerning his initial ultimatum, Trump’s 2015/2016 declarations signaled a change from the usual political campaign prattling, and despite his latter-day version lacking Jefferson’s itemized listing, Trump’s campaign announcements constituted his modern list of injustices.

His original run mainly touched upon the public’s long-simmering doubts and uneasiness about why nothing ever changes. Therefore, he lit the hope that possibilities were actually doable, which was believable coming from a man who obviously wasn’t beholden. What followed during Trump’s presidency greatly strengthened the public’s faith by simply fulfilling his campaign pledges.

Now, with this 2024 campaign being as sporadic as it is with all these groundless court appearances, Trump’s messaging is no longer based upon hope, but now with an honest expectancy of what was will be again! And this isn’t just limited to his supporters but also from that mass of anti-Americans who realize that if he gets elected, their communist revolution will be history! In essence, his re-entry into politics, based upon his previous record and latest statements, once again builds a declaratory aura.

So, it’s not difficult to link both his original and current campaigning with a modern-day version of America’s 1776 Declaration! Think about it. The similarities are eerie. These times beckon a historic review since our young country also had to deal with those stubborn Tories, who were bent upon remaining subjects rather than becoming free citizens! Today, it’s backward; modern thought demands dependency rather than freedom!

Connecting our 1776 charter with today should also send chills. Let it be considered today, as it was declared back then that “…Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable…” As is today, a few of those past grievances continue to, “He has refused to assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good,” “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone,” “He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People,” and lastly, “…depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury.” These and other grievances were included in America’s 1776 Declaration of Independence. By the way, “He” now refers to our present-day President.

It’s fair to say that the cause of today’s turmoil began as Trump’s original campaign gained credibility. His non-political talk and truthful platform caused his foes to circle their wagons and then to show themselves and their methods; which previously had only been suspected. After that, it’s been “Katie bar the door” and “all hands on deck” against Trump and our Blessed America. George Floyd’s reckless self regard and induced passing merely provided the excuse for their anarchy!

This revealing of America’s hidden power structure was costly, but Trump dictated its necessity. Its unplanned “coming out” meant that tomorrow’s revolution was now today’s. Since this wasn’t planned, we need to build upon our enemy’s disruption. Already, Trump’s agenda has uncovered the media‘s “fake news,” which caused a reduced readership. Also, traitorous corporations have shed their masks as China is now their chosen benefactor. And colleges have been unmasked when supporting their student’s hateful anti-American/pro-communist doctrines.

The end result of this election will undoubtedly usher in one of two futures. Similar to the alternatives back in 1776, the outcomes are either the darkness of living as obedient and mindless robots or the blessed light of living and prospering as free Americans.

This is not an exaggeration when considering the many hundreds of American citizens who have been incarcerated for over three years without any charges. And if that’s not abusive enough, let’s not forget the cold-blooded murder of Ashlie Babbit, which still awaits an investigation! From such lawless acts, the lesson is inescapable; as President Trump has stated, “it’s not just me that they’re after, they’re after all of you!” If Trump fails in November, his words will become an uneasy companion!

The post Our Modern Day Version appeared first on Granite Grok.

ROCHESTER, NH—UNH student and sixth-generation Rochester citizen Sam Farrington has announced his candidacy for the NH House, representing Rochester’s Ward 4.

“I am proud to announce my candidacy for State Rep.” Farrington said, “I have made this decision because my future is at stake. When I look around, I am worried about where we are headed. I stand for values like family, faith, and freedom, all of which are under attack. As a young person, I have skin in the game because my future is on the ballot.” Farrington continued, “As Rochester’s next State Rep, I will fight to advance the interests of Granite Staters. My priorities include decreasing the overall tax burden, lowering the cost of living, increasing educational freedom, protecting the rights of parents in schools, and securing New Hampshire’s border.”

Sam comes from a large and well-known family. His Chesley Hill farm has been in the family since 1913. Over the past few years, Sam has stepped up to manage the property and oversee its renovation. He successfully negotiated with the USDA to secure conservation funding, transforming the estate into a beautiful scene with a successful hay operation.

Sam is an active member of his community. He graduated at the top of his class from Spaulding High School in 2022. He gives back to his city by serving as an American Legion baseball coach and volunteering at Howie’s Field of Dreams, which provides opportunities for challenged kids to play baseball.

“New Hampshire can’t take “Live Free or Die” for granted. We need to elect prudent conservatives with a new perspective to the State House so that we can protect this great state.”

To learn more about Sam or to contribute to the campaign, visit SamuelFarrington.com.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 31, 2024
CONTACT: farringtonsam22@gmail.com

 

Reminder: Content about candidates or by candidates is not an endorsement by GraniteGrok.com or its authors.

The post Sam Farrington Announces Candidacy for the NH House of Representatives appeared first on Granite Grok.

Choosing the right birthday gift for your girlfriend can feel like a pressure cooker. You want to find something unique, thoughtful, and something that truly expresses your love and appreciation. But with endless options available, where do you even start?

This guide aims to take the guesswork out of gift-giving and help you discover the perfect present that will leave your girlfriend feeling cherished and loved.

Unlocking Her Heart: The Key to a Meaningful Gift

The most important factor in choosing a gift is understanding your girlfriend’s unique personality and interests. Here are some key questions to consider:

What are her passions? 

Does she love reading, cooking, music, or spending time outdoors? Tailoring your gift to her hobbies shows you pay attention and care about what brings her joy.

What’s her style? 

Does she gravitate towards classic elegance, trendy fashion, or a more bohemian aesthetic? Understanding her style preferences ensures the gift aligns with her taste.

Does she have any specific desires? 

Has she mentioned wanting something lately? Perhaps a new gadget, a piece of art for her home, or a subscription box related to her hobbies.

By reflecting on these questions, you gain valuable insights into what would truly resonate with your girlfriend.

Gift Ideas to Ignite Inspiration: Catering to Diverse Preferences

Here are some diverse gift categories to spark your creativity:

Experiences: 

Create lasting memories with a shared adventure like a weekend getaway, a concert ticket, a cooking class, or a hot air balloon ride.

Jewellery: 

A timeless and elegant choice, consider a necklace, bracelet, earrings, or a personalised piece with her birthstone or initials.

Fashion and Accessories: 

A new handbag, a cosy scarf, a pair of stylish shoes, or a designer watch can be a thoughtful addition to her wardrobe.

Beauty and Wellness: 

Pamper her with a luxurious bathrobe, a set of high-quality skincare products, a spa gift certificate, or a subscription to a beauty box.

Personalised Gifts: 

Show her you care with a gift that has a personal touch, like a custom photo album, a framed piece of artwork with a special message, or a piece of jewellery engraved with her initials.

Gourmet Food and Drinks: 

Spoil her taste buds with a basket of gourmet chocolates, a selection of artisanal cheeses and wines, or a subscription to a coffee or tea of the month club.

Handmade or DIY Gifts: 

If you’re crafty, consider creating a personalised gift like a painting, a knitted scarf, or a piece of pottery. The effort and thoughtfulness will be truly appreciated.

Remember, the most important aspect is not the price tag but the thought and effort you put into choosing a gift that reflects your love and understanding of your girlfriend.

Beyond the Gift: Adding the Extra Sparkle

While the gift itself is important, don’t forget the little details that make it extra special:

Presentation Matters: 

Wrap the gift beautifully with thoughtful paper and ribbon. A handwritten card expressing your love and appreciation adds a personal touch.

Plan a Special Occasion: 

Elevate the gift-giving experience by planning a romantic dinner, a picnic in a scenic spot, or a fun activity you can enjoy together.

Capture the Memories: 

Take photos or videos of her reaction to the gift. These memories will become cherished keepsakes.

By going the extra mile, you can ensure her birthday is a truly unforgettable experience.

FAQS: What if I’m on a tight budget? 

A: There are plenty of thoughtful and meaningful gifts that don’t have to break the bank. Consider homemade gifts, experiences like a hike or bike ride together, or a heartfelt letter expressing your love.

What if I’m not sure what she wants? 

A: Pay attention to her interests and subtle hints she might drop. You can also ask her friends or family for suggestions.

What if the gift doesn’t go as planned? 

A: The most important thing is the thought behind the gift. If she doesn’t love it, focus on the gesture and express your sincere appreciation for her understanding.

What if the experience provider cancels? 

A: If the experience provider cancels due to unforeseen circumstances, WonderDays will typically offer rebooking or choosing a similar experience.

Are there any blackout dates for specific experiences? 

A: Some experiences might have blackout dates (e.g., holidays, peak seasons) when they are unavailable. Check the experience description for details.

What about age restrictions and physical fitness requirements? 

A: Some experiences have age or physical fitness requirements for safety reasons. These are usually outlined in the experience description.

Here’s what WonderDays offer:

WonderDays offers a wide variety of experiences to suit almost any interest, including:

• Adventure: Hot air ballooning, skydiving, white-water rafting
• Food and Drink: Afternoon teas, cooking classes, gourmet food tours
• Relaxation: Spa days, weekend getaways, boat cruises

Some ways to find out more about WonderDays:

• Website: Visit their website https://www.wonderdays.co.uk/ to explore the full range of experiences, pricing, and locations.
• Social Media: Follow them on Facebook, Instagram, etc.

To read more, click here

The post Finding the Perfect Spark: Birthday Gifts for Your Girlfriend appeared first on Granite Grok.

Now comes, the Appellant Daniel Richard, pro se, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 16 (7), respectfully gives notice of a new compelling authority from the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States “SCOTUS”, decided May 23, 2024 in the matter of ALEXANDER v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, No. 22-807 602 U.S.___ (2024). [Hereinafter, “Alexander”]. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Argued October 11, 2023—Decided May 23, 2024, hereinafter Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP 602 U.S.___ (2024) (See attached exhibit A), where the Plaintiff here argues as compelling precedent applicable to the case at bar.

Accordingly, the Appellant respectfully submits to the court, where Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP—above, is an election law case reaffirming the Appellants previous citation of Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen No. 20-843 (U.S. June 23, 2022), and the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), on August 14, 2023, in the Appellants motion for late authorities this authority is not only appropriate but precedent in the present New Hampshire case, argued and awaiting release of the NH state court decision.

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joining the majority opinion by concurring in part, in the Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP decision, reinforces the precedent of Moore v. Harper, in the examination of the elections clause of the Constitution for the United States, Article I, §4, cl. 1, reinforcing judicial review by State and Federal Courts who both possess the authority to exercise judicial review also over state legislative actions affecting the time, manner, and place of conducting Federal Elections.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP   has tied Moore v. Harper (2023) and Bruen (2022) together and reinforces the Appellants arguments, by stating a fact in law, that the standard of review for examination of the rights enumerated in the U.S. Const. including the Federal Elections Clause Article I, §4, cl. 1, must be examined under Heller/Bruen methodology, and not by means-end scrutiny.

Quoting Justice Thomas:

Although States have the initial duty to draw district lines, the Elections Clause commits exclusive supervisory authority over the states drawing of congressional districts to Congress—not federal courts. It provides: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may it any time by – Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1. The first part of the Clause “imposes a duty upon” state legislatures to “prescribe the details necessary to hold congressional elections.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 862 (1995) (Thomas J., dissenting). The second part “grants power exclusively to Congress” to police the state legislatures’ performance of their duty. Id., at 864. Critically, the Clause leaves the Judiciary out of the districting process entirely.

The Clause’s assignment of rules is comprehensive. For example, a state legislature’s responsibility over congressional elections “‘transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State’” through other state actors; the state legislature is the exclusive state authority. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 58 (2023) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting Leser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, 137, (1922)). In a similar vein, the Clause makes Congress the exclusive federal authority over States’ efforts to draw congressional districts, to the exclusion of the courts.

The historical record compels this interpretation of the Elections Clause text. gerrymandering and vote delusion are not new phenomena. The founding generation was familiar with political districting problems from the American colonial experience. See Vieth, 541 U.S., at 274 (collecting examples). But, the framers nowhere suggested the federal courts as a potential solution to those problems. Instead, they relied on congressional oversight. The framers’ considered choice of a non-judicial remedy is highly relevant to context to the interpretation of the elections clause. See New York State rifle& pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 26—27 (2022). See pages 26 and 27 in the Bruen decision below. 

Bruen provides:

We categorize these historical sources, because, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 634—635 (emphasis added). The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; -pg. 25.

-the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates either date may not illuminate the scope of the right if linguistic or legal conventions change in the intervening years. It is one thing for courts to “reac[h] back to the 14th century” for English practices that “prevailed up to the ‘period immediately before and after the framing of the Constitution.’” Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. 554 U.S. 269, 311 (2008) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting). It is quite another to rely on in an “ancient” practice that had become “obsolete in England at the time of the adaptation of the Constitution” and never “was acted upon or accepted in the colonies.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 477 (1935).

Sometimes, in interpreting our own Constitution, “it [is] better not to go too far back into antiquity for the best securities of our liberties,” Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 382 (1983), unless evidence shows that medieval law survived to become our Founders’ law. A long, unbroken line of common-law precedent stretching from Braxton to Blackstone is far more likely to be part of our law than a short-lived, 14th century English practice. –pg. 26

Thomas has said specifically that these two pages apply as the corrected standard of review of constitutional interpretation of the Elections Clause Article I, §4, cl. 1.

Similarly, we must also guard against giving post enactment history more weight than it can rightly bear. It is true – pg. 26.

–that in Heller we reiterated that evidence of “how the second amendment was interpreted from immediately after it’s ratification through the end of the 19th century” represented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” 554 U.S., at 605. We therefore examined “a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of [the Second Amendment] after its… ratification.” Ibid. And, in other context, we have explained that “‘a regular course of practice’ can ‘liquidate & settle the meaning of’ disputed or intermediate ‘terms & phrases’” in the Constitution. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op., at 13) (quoting Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908)); see also, e.g.,  Houston Community college System v. Wilson, 595 U.S.___, ___, (2022) (slip op. at 5) (same); The Federalist No. 37, p. 229 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison); see generally C. Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1, 10—21 (2001); W. Baude, Constitutional Liquidation, 71 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2019). In other words, we recognize that “where A governmental practice has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic, the practice should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional provision.” [Emphasis added.] NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 572 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 174 (1926); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 905 (1997). —pg. 27

            But to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls. [Emphasis added.] “‘[L]iquidating’ indeterminacies in written laws is far removed from expanding or altering them.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. __, __ (2019) (Thomas, J. concurring) (slip op., at 13); see also Letter from James Madison 477 (G. Hunt ed. 1910). Thus, “post-ratification adaptation or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text – pg. 27

–obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.” – pg. 28. Heller, 670 F. 3d, at 1274, n. 6 (Kavanagh, J., dissenting); see also Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U.S. __, __, (2020) (slip op., at 15). 

Bruen stated that the Court has “made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government.” 142 S. Ct. at 2137.—pg. 39.

The Heller decision abolished means end scrutiny as a test for the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia writes the following for the majority:

Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurispruden­tial point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally ex­pressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important govern­ mental interests.” Post, at 689–690. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Jus­tice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: Be­cause handgun violence is a problem, because the law is lim­ited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposi­tion that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. – pg. 635

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted— pg. 634

them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guar­antee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrongheaded views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evalua­tion, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home. – pg. 635.

Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applica­tions of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 720–721. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in­ depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)— pg. 635.

Fifteen other cases in the last eleven months since June 2023 citing Moore v. Harper are predicated upon this same principle in law and include the following:

“Since early in our Nation’s history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts.”

“When government is alleged to have threatened any of [the provisions in the New Mexico Bill of [R]ights, it is the responsibility of the courts to interpret and apply the protections of the Constitution.”

Grisham v. Soelen, 539 P.3d 272 (N.M. 2023) 09-22-2023. See also Griego , 2014-NMSC-003, ¶ 1, 316 P.3d 865; Hoffmann v. N.Y. State Ind. Redistricting Comm’n, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6344 (N.Y. 2023); Keefer v. Biden, CIVIL 1:24-CV-00147 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2024) Election Clause case.

Meanwhile, the Bruen decision has been cited 78 times since June 27, 2022.

WHEREFORE, THE APPELLANT respectfully submits this Notice of New Authorities for additional consideration in this case forthwith.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel Richard

Daniel Richard

 

 

 

 

The post Daniel Richard v. Christopher Sununu: Motion for Leave of the Court New Late Authorities appeared first on Granite Grok.