Mary Hakken-Phillips

Mr. Chair & Members of the Committee: I oppose CACR29 on the basis that it runs counter to the fundamental principles of checks and balances from our U.S. Constitution, and is potentially an unconstitutional concurrent resolution if passed. Suspending that concern, if this amendment were to pass and be signed into law, it would set off a constitutional crisis for the state. After all, if the judicial branch no longer has the ability to make rules that have the force and effect of law, then it would no longer be a co-equal branch of government. Who would have oversight of the legislature (it can no longer be the judicial branch and it is not likely to be the partisan executive branch)? Furthermore, if the state of NH judicial branch loses its legal authority, doesn’t it weaken our state’s standing amongst the other states and territories of our nation. Who would interpret our laws when other states challenge them? I fear that the motivation behind this amendment may be bubbling up from a minority segment of society who had adverse outcomes in the court system, so now they are bent on getting their retribution rather than dealing with their own failures in a productive manner. Of course, everyone who loses in court would rather blame a judge or the system itself than look inwardly about what behaviors caused them to land in court in the first place. The judicial branch’s authority should not be disrupted with this amendment proposal. The state of NH will surely suffer if this amendment passes, so I urge the committee to vote ITL on CACR 29. Thank you. Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips