Latest from The Spokesman-Review
State Rep. Matt Shea is castigating The Spokesman-Review on Facebook, essentially suggesting that the newspaper is picking on him again. He's interested in truth in journalism, so we'll offer a bit.
First, the post:
There they go again…the Spokesman Review published another flat our untruth this morning trying to claim by implication that Dale Pearce and myself want to “rewrite the constitution.” I am calling for a formal retraction by the Review. In fact, Dale Pearce was arguing AGAINST any modification or rewriting of the Constitution by an Article V convention. In the interest of truth in journalism just thought you would like to know…
Because this was posted on Thursday morning, a casual reader might assume there's something in the Thursday edition of the newspaper that mentions Shea, Pearce or the survival gathering at Farragut State Park last weekend. Don't go looking for a copy. There isn't.
There is an item in the Huckleberries blog from Wednesday which probably caught his eye, and maybe he didn't notice the date. Or maybe he assumed everything online goes into the newspaper. Or maybe he just didn't sign into Facebook on Wednesday and got around to posting Thursday. In any event, for those who don't check Huckleberries . .
To read the rest of this post, or to comment, continue inside the blog.
It's Constitution Day., Did you remember to send a card or flowers to your favorite Amendment?
We celebrate the nation's charter because this is the day Constitutional Convention signed the document. This is the 225 anniversary of that vote in 1787. Unfortunately, there's no special gift like diamond or platinum for the 225th. Not one of those good Latin terms, either, like Dodransbicentennial, which is 175 years, or Sestercentennial, which is 250.
While some might argue that the Constitution should be celebrated on the day it became law, that's a bit more complicated because the states ratified it on different days. Would it be when the first state ratified? That'd be Dec. 7, 1787, the day Delaware voted yes.
Or would it be when the ninth state — which was the tipping point among the 13 states for establishing the Constitution as law of the land? That would be June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire voted yes.
Or would it be when the 13th state ratified? That would be May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island ratified — which, by the way, was more than a year after the first Congress was seated and George Washington was inaugurated as president — on a 34-32 vote at that state's convention. (The route the Founding Fathers took to their more perfect union was not exactly straight and smooth.)
In any event, this is Constitution Day. It's also known as Citizenship Day, in honor of people who have come to the United States and become citizens. Find an appropriate way to celebrate.
Spokane trivia quiz: Where is the marker in Spokane to commemorate the bicentennial of the signing of the Constitution?
Answer later today.
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?