Cited by

Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA 259:125, II, then “it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute.” See State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 203, 205-06 (2013).

Should the legislature disagree with our interpretation of RSA 91-A:3, II(c), it is, of course, “free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute.” State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205-06 (2013).

We therefore conclude that the pre- employment file is not within the scope of RSA 516:36, II.2 Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA 516:36, II, “it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute.” State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205-06 (2013).

Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA chapter 498-A and RSA chapter 230, “it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute[s].” State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205-06 (2013).

" State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205, 75 A.3d 1125 (2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 526, 107 S.Ct.

However, we acknowledge the State’s point that its reading of the statute arguably advances the goal of the statute — to prevent child exploitation and abuse — to a greater extent than our construction.

soc., 159 N.H. 627, 648 (2010) (“Unless otherwise inhibited by either the State or Federal Constitutions, the Legislature may change existing laws, both statutory or common, at its pleasure, but in so doing, it may not deprive a person of a property right theretofore acquired under existing law.” (quotation omitted)); see also Hogan v. Pat’s Peak Skiing, LLC, 168 N.H. 71, 75 (2015); State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205-06 (2013).

State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205 (2013) (“[I]t frustrates rather than effectuates legislative intent simplistically to assume that whatever furthers the 7 statute’s primary objective must be the law.” (quotation omitted)).3 Therefore, we conclude that the Board properly interpreted RSA 151-C:4 as prev

If the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA 225-A:25, “it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute.” State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205-06 (2013).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

“We are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 200 (2013).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.