Posts tagged: U.S. Constitution
Sheriff candidate Dave Resser thought he understood the sworn oath of office for elected officials. After attending a conference in Las Vegas last month, he said he has a clearer picture of what it means to be a constitutional sheriff and what that would look like should he be elected sheriff. “The sheriff, the sheriff’s deputies and other elected officials take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state of Idaho to the best of their ability,” Mr. Resser said. “A constitutional sheriff will make sure that what is done in his county to his people abides by the constitution.” A constitutional sheriff is an official who protects and upholds the constitutional rights of his constitutes, the people he serves. He will not allow anyone to conduct business inside of his county that is unconstitutional/Summer Crosby, St. Maries Gazette Record. More here.
Question: Should a sheriff be the one to decide what is constitution and what isn't within his county?
Despite the testimony from Idaho's (Republican) attorney general that a proposed law nullifying the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, the House State Affairs Committee voted 14-5 last week to approve the bill. One Republican lawmaker (Eric Anderson, R-Priest River, pictured) on the committee joined with four Democrats. … The majority, however, were in league with one of the know-nothing teabaggers in attendance at a hearing on the law: “I wasn't going to speak until I heard the self-proclaimed scholar,” Bruce Nave, a resident of rural Sweet, north of Boise, told the panel. “We as citizens are tired of being lorded over by representatives. We're not conspiracy theorists. We aren't kooks. No one is going to force me to buy anything.” Law, schmaw. If I don't agree with it, the hell with the rule of law. This “the hell with the Constitution” aspect of the nullification effort — alive and well not just in Idaho but in eleven others states — is disturbing, particularly coming from people who are making laws/Joan McCarter, Daily Kos. More here.
Question: What do you make of situations, like the nullification effort in the Idaho Legislature, when lawmakers knowingly defy the U.S. Constitution?
Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d'Alene, argues in the House on Monday for his resolution backing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution supporting parental rights.
The Idaho House is now debating a resolution pushed by Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d'Alene, backing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution promoting parental rights, and opposing the United States ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that already has been ratified by 194 nations - all nations except the United States and Somalia. “Such enumeration of these rights in the text of the Constitution will preserve them from being infringed upon by the shifting ideologies and interpretations of the United States Supreme Court,” the non-binding measure, HJM 1, declares.
Nonini said the proposed amendment “will not alter the current state of parental rights in this country. It will simply ensure that our current rights will remain free from erosion due to judicial activism” or international law. Nonini said he's convinced there's risk. “Longstanding constitutional rights are now hanging by a precarious thread,” he told the House. Read more. Betsy Russell, EOB
Do we need this change to the U.S. Constitution?