Idaho House debates, kills nullification bill; North Idaho lawmakers split

The Idaho House on Monday, after much debate, killed legislation declaring that Idaho lawmakers can void federal laws and court decisions.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Paul Shepherd, R-Riggins, told the House, “It just don’t seem right to me that we just roll over, they make a decision we think is very wrong, we just roll over and go on to something else. … I think it is important that we stand up and we don’t just roll over.”

He also said he thought an Idaho attorney general’s opinion that found that his bill wouldn’t be enforceable and that state lawmakers couldn’t do what he proposed “misunderstands” his bill.

Deputy Idaho Attorney General Brian Kane wrote in the opinion, “Because the Constitution was formed by ‘we the people,’ a single state cannot render a federal law void and of no effect.”

“He didn’t address what our checks and balances responsibility is,” Shepherd told the House.

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, said, “What’s the federal government doing about marijuana laws in some of these states? We know that’s not only against federal policy, it’s against federal law. We have nullification there.”

He said, “There is dysfunction in the current federal system. … The Supreme Court is NOT the last arbiter of what is constitutional or is not constitutional, the states HAVE a say in that. If states cannot individually begin to stand and address these issues, then when will it happen?”

Rep. Stephen Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, told the House, “I would suggest that we spend a little bit of time at some point in our legislative careers looking at the history of the United States.” He noted that after southern states argued they could nullify the Constitution, they tried to secede. “That debate was resolved in a bloody civil war that cost over 600,000 American lives and another 3 million wounded,” Hartgen said. “We know how that ended. I would urge us here to exercise some historical understanding and caution.”

Rep. Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, a Harvard-educated attorney, said, “Eisenhower didn’t say, ‘Go land on Omaha beach unless your state legislature says not to.’ We have operated as a singular nation, and this seeks to undermine that in a very fundamental way that I think is very dangerous.”

She added, “We have enough real problems to address. We have got problems with our schools, we’ve got problems with our infrastructure and our health care, we don’t need to re-litigate the civil war for really no good reason and in a manner that we know is going to inflict very serious costs on our taxpayers.”

Shepherd, a 75-year-old sawmill owner, introduced the same bill last year. It died without a hearing. This year, the House State Affairs Committee passed it with just four “no” votes, sending it to the full House and leading to Monday’s debate and vote.

Shepherd told the House, “Look at the rulings that’s went up against the Bible, and how many scriptures have been canceled on the prayer, on Roe vs. Wade, on the issue of gay marriage. There’s numerous scriptures now canceled by the Supreme Court. So I just think we have to stand up, we have to quit rolling over, and we have to take a stand.”