1. Where Congress's enumerated military powers
preempt all state law concerning disposition of
military benefits, and Congress has not affirmatively
granted the state the power to treat veterans'
disability benefits received by a non-retired, disabled
service member as "income" for purposes of support
obligations to dependents, and in fact, explicitly,
excludes such benefits from state court control and
affirmatively protects these benefits from "all legal
and equitable process whatever" whether "before or
after receipt" by the veteran, is Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S.
619 (1987), which ruled to the contrary, a legitimate
basis for the state of New Hampshire to usurp the
Supremacy Clause and, in direct conflict with positive
federal law, order Petitioner, a non-retired, disabled
veteran to include these monies as "income" available
for purposes of calculating his child support
obligations?

2. Where, after Rose, supra, Congress created an
Article I Court in the Veterans Judicial Review Act
(VJRA), 38 U.S.C. § 511 and gave the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs "exclusive jurisdiction over all
questions of law and fact necessary to a determination
of benefits by veterans and dependents," and made
such decisions final and conclusive as to all other
courts, does a state court have jurisdiction or
authority to make a disposition of these benefits to
another party in a manner that is contrary to the
initial benefit determination?

Where Congress's enumerated military powers preempt all state law concerning disposition of military benefits, and Congress has not affirmatively granted the state the power to treat veterans' disability benefits received by a non-retired, disabled service member as 'income' for purposes of support obligations to dependents, and in fact, explicitly, excludes such benefits from state court control and affirmatively protects these benefits from 'all legal and equitable process whatever' whether 'before or after receipt' by the veteran, is Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987), which ruled to the contrary, a legitimate basis for the state of New Hampshire to usurp the Supremacy Clause and, in direct conflict with positive federal law, order Petitioner, a non-retired, disabled veteran to include these monies as 'income' available for purposes of calculating his child support obligations?