Spokane7
34°
Here's a link to my full story at spokesman.com on how an Idaho Senate committee killed legislation seeking to nullify the federal health-care reform bill on a voice vote today after a nearly three-hour hearing, angering a crowd of close to 200 that grew restive afterward, with some confronting lawmakers. Two Idaho Attorney General's opinions said the bill, HB 117, was unconstitutional.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
IdahoRed on February 25 at 12:01 p.m.
Federal judges have ruled that ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone with a 4th grade education could figure out that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
Whether it be by incompetence or will, the AG hasn’t the courage to stand on the line and do his job, he has repeatedly mislead the citizens of Idaho with his “opinions”, opinions not worth the paper they are written on.
slfisher on February 25 at 12:13 p.m.
Well, maybe you should have voted against him in the last election.
BobEly on February 25 at 12:15 p.m.
I want whatever it is that IdahoRed is smoking!
scootermom on February 25 at 12:23 p.m.
I don’t. I prefer reality.
JIMV on February 25 at 12:25 p.m.
I will remember…these weasels will have to run again and their opposition will want money.
IdahoRed on February 25 at 12:31 p.m.
FYI…. I did vote against him.
BobEly on February 25 at 12:45 p.m.
Now children, the adults finally showed up at the legislature. Maybe now they can get on with doing something constructive. Maybe they can do away with the tax breaks for all their wealthy donors!
fortboise on February 25 at 1:41 p.m.
JimV — way to stay classy, dude!
JIMV on February 25 at 5:13 p.m.
When one is in a Red state with a Red Senate is it too much to ask the silly fools do to what their voters demand? When politicians begin to vote in ways that do not reflect the will of their voters, we have politicians out of touch. When that happened in DC we fired 50 republican RINO’s and ‘moderates’ in 2008 and 2010. It appears the same medicine is needed at the state level.
ericn1300 on February 25 at 8:20 p.m.
JIMV, you can vote anyone you want into office but in the end they come up against this simple fact “The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.”
Quoted from: http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/IC/ArtISect3.htm
The Idaho Senators did Idaho a great service by voting the way they did, and i respect them for it.
Sisyphus on February 26 at 9:10 a.m.
When one is in a Red state with a Red Senate is it too much to ask the silly fools do to what their voters demand?—if said voters are idiots, then yes. Particularly when they think they have a mandate to go beyond the rules set forth in the constitution, on a historically and legally defunct doctrine, that no one even mentioned on the campaign trail.
Go back to Maine.
JIMV on February 26 at 9:29 a.m.
Eric, I would be so much more impressed with that argument if the overwhelming majority of folk making it did not have any problem at all with the sanctuary cities doing exactly as out state was proposing. The responsibility of a Red senator is not to suck up to the blue minority in their districts, as these folk did.
They need to be removed and replaced with folk who remember who brought them to the dance, and who have a spine!
duckster1 on February 26 at 12:34 p.m.
As I count—the latest federal district court score is 3-2 against voiding the Affordable Health Care Act on constitutional grounds. More to come I’m sure.
JIMV on February 26 at 7:56 p.m.
But only two have actually considered the issues…read the opinions.
Sisyphus on February 27 at 8:27 a.m.
Uh no five courts have considered the issue. Twenty five court have actually upheld the act. You read the opinions.
duckster1 on February 27 at 10:00 a.m.
Sis and Jimmy,
I’d be interest in the citations. Either the Westlaw citation or the court and case number.
Matt_Salisbury on February 28 at 10:20 a.m.
I believe that the State Affairs committee had political viability in mind when they voted last Friday. Especially in light of what transpired this morning (Feb. 28) Sen. McKenzie introduced the Madison Amendment Monday morning and it passed unanimously.
Real reform to limit the growth of federal power in 2011 could come from states. There exists now, a once-in-a- generation opportunity to start a process that could restore a balance of state and federal power and fiscal responsibility to Washington.
With GOP leaders in both Houses of the legislature in 27 states, 5 more states where conservative Democrats hold the balance of power, and several more where moderate Democrats might favor giving states more influence in Washington a bipartisan coalition of 34 states has the potential in 2011 to persuade Congress to propose constitutional reform to limit the growth of federal power.
Until Oct 2011 most states will also have the unique power that comes with Congressional redistricting. An Amendment proposed in 2011 could go far towards ratification in 2012 while we still have the ‘once in 75 years’ level of conservative strength in state legislatures. This window it may not come again for a generation. It is an extraordinary opportunity, but an extraordinarily short time frame.
There are some State House Speakers, Senate Presidents, legislators, and other political leaders like Ted Cruz, Grover Norquist, David Keene and Charlie Black who understand that we have this opportunity. The growth of federal government power and debt is out of control. Constitutional reform is needed to restore a balance of federal and state power and fiscal responsibility to Washington.
Congress is not likely, on its own to propose such Constitutional reform. Many fear calling for an unpredictable Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments. Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese originally suggested giving states the same power as Congress to propose a specific Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Madison thought states had this power when he wrote in the Federalist Papers #43: “It (the Constitution) equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side or the other”
The Madison Amendment, based on Meese’s original concept, would ensure that Article V of the Constitution was interpreted in the way the authors of the Constitution intended, so states have the clear power to limit the scope of a Convention they call for to a single Amendment.
Ratification of a “Madison Amendment” would:
1. End the risk of an accidental runaway Constitutional Convention because states could clearly and constitutionally limit its scope.
2. Give States effective new bargaining power with Congress because 34 states could propose a single Amendment.
3. Open the door to more fundamental limits on government and federal debt that Congress would never impose on itself.
The prospects for a balanced budget, tax limit, or spending limit amendment would be significantly improved if advocates did not have to counter fears of a “runaway convention”. The Madison was drafted by a team of experienced Constitutional lawyers including current and former legal staff to the House Judiciary Committee and the DOJ. More information can be found on the Madison Amendment website, www. MadisonAmendment.org
Algernon on February 28 at 11:08 a.m.
From reading the comments from those posting regarding nullification I have to ask: when you say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land what does that have to do with nullification? What if practicing nullification actually helps uphold the Constitution by giving states a middle way between leaving the union and suffering under laws that are unconstitutional?
And why is it that those who quote (often incorrectly) Article Six never mention the gross violation of the Constitution under the Tenth Amendment? It is a bit suspicious that all of the emphasis among legal scholars (including our own David Adler) and layman alike is on violations that seem to be in favor of restoring some state authority. If you want to devolve power back to the states and create some balance you are a radical; a bomb-thrower; a home grown terrorist on par with McVeigh.
This predicament we as a nation find ourselves in (losing control at the local level) is a direct result of the central government absorbing too many of the duties and prerogatives that have always been under the authority of the state governments. Why are we halting and concocting fictional constitutional scruples at this time when action is needed most? The way is open for us, why won’t we seize it?