YOUR COMMENTS

Jim,

I completely agree with you and I reject the idea that the NH constitution requires public education.

However, I made that comment because it seems that most of the posters have more of a problem with the courts stepping on the legislatures toes regarding how to finance, rather than whether to finance.

My entire point was that if you accept Point A, you have to allow the court to enforce it.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what everyone's complaint is, but from how I read them boiled down to the essence, it sounds like people want there to be a right to education, but not want it to be enforced... and that makes no sense to me.
- Kevin Barnett, Nashua, NH

Kevin Barnett, why would we "accept that there is a right to an education" when no such constitutional right exists? Such a right is not only absent, but cannot exist because enforcement requires violating the rights of others (ie property rights).

Education puppet lawyers pulled out the discredited "Positive Rights" concept to justify this money grab. The term simply elevates "entitlements" to the level of a constitutional right. Our Constitution has no "positive rights" - how could such a "right" ever be guaranteed?

Its worth noting that the structure of our government precludes the enforcement of any sort of "positive right". To enforce a "positive right" the courts would need powers they've been specifically denied in our Constitution.

That is the root of the problem, and that is what drives the Supreme Court to seek powers it simply doesn't have. As Tammy Simmons said, we need lawmakers with the backbone to stand up to this court.
- Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

Five men in black robes on the other side of the river in Concord do not have the authority to tell the legislature what they must do.

We need to elect state reps who will fight to stand up to the courts. If these judges want to legislate, let them run for state rep or state senate and do so.
- Tammy Simmons, West Manchester

I thought the judges at the Superior Court level were appointed to the seat and Senators and State Representatives were elected by the people. Local control should be given back to the towns/cities. We need real representatives and senators who will stand up to the courts and represent the people respectfully. One solution could be to ensure funding is rated along the lines of the rate of inflation plus poplulation growth and such things as student-teacher ratios, average salaries and other factors used to determine local aid just to name a few. Otherwise we will continue go around in circles for more years to come.
- Robert M Tarr, Manchester

Judge Broderick, as you're undoubtedly an ace constitution scholar, kindly explain how "cherish" becomes "centralize education control and spend up the wazoo at the state level"

Here's another one. Where does our Constitution grant the Supreme Court power to order the General Court to pass laws, levy taxes, and spend money?

Nowhere! Those powers are not available to the Supreme Court, only the Legislature. But you must already know that.

So the next time a bunch of Big Ed special interest lawyers dress up like ordinary citizens and file another frivolous state lawsuit, appoint your "special master" all you want.

With luck, your "special master" can report back to you and the NEA that the General Court understands separation of powers and chooses to ignore you.
- Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

If we're upset with the Court for reading a right to education into the state constitution, I completely agree they are out of line and just writing things (that no matter how reasonable, sensible, logical, or desirable they are) that just aren't there.

However, if we accept that there is a right to education, then the Court has been extremely reasonable. They have been telling the legislature for a decade, "hey guys, do something so we don't have to"... hey when are you going to do that... etc. At some point, they cant let themselves be walked over time and time again...
- Kevin Barnett, Nashua, NH

I do not wish to sound partisan but…….IF you elect Democrats to the NH House and Senate you are sure to have – in addition to John Lynch – folks representing you who favor a state income tax (and maybe a sales tax).
You can read where Broderick and Duggan want to take us in the future.
We must elect Republicans – the ones who promise a resolution that informs the NH Supreme Court that they are longer involved in tax policy – that is left to those elected to the House and Senate. Now…if a Republican won’t promise to do it your way – withhold your vote and tell them you will!
bnyoung@metrocast.net
- Niel Young, Laconia

Change the constitution immediately so we will no longer be under the thumb of these rogue judges.
- Bill, Manchester

Wow Broderick really does think that the the Supreme Court are Kings. Amazing. Where does he get off thinking that they have the authority to make laws when the State Constitution clearly gives that authority to the General Court? Impeachment anyone?
- Nate, Canaan

"Cherish" does not mean "fund." It didn't mean it in the 19th century - when the clause was added - and it doesn't mean it now.

The court is wrong. Period. The legislature should tell the court to go to hell. Lawyers aren't any better than the rest of us at reading constitutions - and they're usually worse.
- Keith, Manchester

The platitudes in Article 83 that the court used to mandate equality could, if read by a different court, be used to strike down our entire system of government education. However, for the Legislature to enact a different, but essentially equivalent, system, and declare that the litigation was overtaken by events, was a gambit. The gambit has succeeded. Can we now get back to work, instead of filing new lawsuits to get Claremont the money that Claremont Town Meeting won't vote, at Brentwood's expense?
- Spike, Brentwood NH

CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION

Seriously. When the Court starts talking about a "special master", enough is enough.
- MP, Hampton Falls