Tom’s perspective on Idaho’s HJR5: (And to no surprise, long winded)
This post is one that was written to simplify a post that was written on this topic previous to this one. It was shorter and in more of a bullet point format but I had a few readers ask me to explain my position more clearly as it was confusing.
I have been told that many times less is more but what I realized when I was first reading things like this, is if the same thing was written in a variety of different ways, although looking at the length of this would seem overwhelming, the topic I discuss may, by the time you finish it be made more clear.
HJR5 a few thoughts…
Apparently this resolution has been around the Idaho legislature for a few years now and true to form, it appears to be written to baffle the common man written in what some call corporate legalese, to give the appearance that it is good for the people but also true to form again, we know that few bills are, as we are finally waking up to the overwhelming corruption in every branch and every level of government.
With this in mind, I decided to take a whack at what I see knowing what I know not only about the abuse of the people by the federal government but locally as well as the lining pockets seems to trump liberty and from my perspective, Idaho is no different with the exception that we valiantly echo repeated falsehoods that “we are the most conservative state in the union” like it somehow means we are conservative, which when asked,no one can seem to cogently define the term.
That all being said, this is what I gathered from my attendance at a county central somewhere in the state where attorneys, businessmen, corporate lobby and both Neocons in the party attend with the despised “constitutionalists.”
HJR5 Verbal Stated purpose;
The passage of HJR5 will give the legislature authority to review or deny rules created by Non governmental agencies (NGO’s.)
This law is currently in statute but they want to add it as an amendment so the law can not be struck down by the courts?
The passage of this resolution will restore the power to the legislature.
Do “administrative rules” apply to any law that applies to the citizens or only to the administration that creates them?
The legislature has always had the power to review, edit or deny the rules as it is part of the law making process. Why would the legislature write and pass bills without writing the scope of what the law was for and how it was to be applied?
Why would the legislature fear the courts striking down a statute and not a constitutional amendment especially since neither the courts or the legislature either care or understand the purpose or the text of the Constituion anyway much less anything related to jurisdiction, the separation of powers or checks and balances? And if a court were to rule against the law or amendment, what enforcement mechanism do they have to enforce it if the legislature Checks the judiciary?
How would the creation of an amendment restore control they have always had? And if it was delegated, does not the legislature have the authority to take it back?
In addition, The legislature doesn’t read all the bills before they pass anyway, much less read them three times.
The legislature admits they don’t pay attention to detail and now they are going to have time to review rules?
Doesn’t the legislature have the authority to review AND APPROVE OR DENY rules as part of law making power?
Is there a constitutional provision to allow corporate lobby or NGO’S to make law and rules are part of that process?
Why doesn’t the legislature exercise its authority in law making including rule making?
The legislature continually shirks its duty and fails to stand exercising their full authority anyway where these laws and rules created by collective organizations somehow even apply to the people without an enactment clause, passed as a rule like common core?
They say they are using HJR5 to restrain federal agencies “like the control of surface water?” If the state lawfully passed a constitutional amendment declaring marriage between a man and a woman, if I remember correctly, the state peacocks threatening a lawsuit against the very agency that was guilty of the overreach of power and overthrew or nullified the states amendment?
How then will an amendment, protect the state from federal overreach when the basic understanding of our state government is that we are inferior to the federal government?
“Rules have more effect than the statute?” Rep. Janet Trujillo. What did she mean by this and what sort of constitutional record does she have and will that record reveal her motivation for support of such resolution? If not, shall we look at the interest of others involved and their connections?
What can we tell by those in support of anything? National Association of Legislatures supports this? If we are remotely interested in being constitutional (be serious) How is this agency constitutional and how much pull and control should a collective association or agency have as the bill will most likely benefit the agencies or corporations at the expense of the citizen?
Governor Otter and Brad Little support it? What’s that tell you when they allowed federal overreach giving us common core and obamacare, gay marriage and Muslim refugees etc. then stating he was going to challenge federal overreach in a federal court? Sounds like the state is subservient? Didn’t the court attempt to nullify a lawfully created state constitutional amendment and the star cowered like a slave to its master?
Supporters of HJR5 said AG Wasden opposes HJR5 in recent land board meeting citing legislative overreach?
Is Wasden saying that the legislature does not have the lawful authority to frame the rules surrounding that law and that corporations or NGO’s lawfully have that power? I wouldn’t state my claim on what he says until I got an explanation directly from him on this issue.
Supporters say HJR5 was upheld by Supreme Court? What message does that and should that send when more than half, or many of our state are either ignorant of the constitution of have little to no interest in properly applying it?
Today, we can always find the truth by following the money since evidence of the governorship, for example, appears so focused, not on maintaining liberty as an elected governor of the state but consumed with job creation like somehow it’s his job as a corporate executive to bring jobs here to Idaho on taxpayer subsidies and making what would appear to be treaties with foreign countries that I believe the job was lawfully delegated to congress.
How are words of HJR5 to replace the mechanism of citizen accountability when the state adheres so loosely to not only the GOP platform but the state and federal constitution? If they feel that adherence to these documents is not necessary is it any wonder why we’re in the shape we are in as a state or nation?
I was told in the last GOP convention that their biggest frustration is that “constitutionalists” believe those that take an oath or say they have a platform should stick to it, when they believed it was just a loose basic guideline that can be contorted at will. Is this why the GOP wouldn’t realize if the party were hijacked by Marxists or other subversive elements? How could they possibly?
It is evident that FARM BUREAU, an NGO, is lobbying and printing material in support of HJR5 as I was handed a flyer to confirm that fact. My first question is what power and authority should a collective organization have over an individual’s concern and could not that collective, with its bargaining power and money, strip that power from the individuals that oppose what they support? Shall we as state citizens also support giving up state and national sovereignty in support of TPP/TTIP that apparently through an article in Ag weekly Farm Bureau supports?
Is anyone asking the motivation for such a dangerous move or are they attempting to bamboozle people either because they may be misled of that they desire to fulfill some agenda that somehow slipped under the radar?
What constitutional power should associations of legislators or groups like farm bureau have that are collective unions against the individual vote of the citizens? And what if these collective organizations so focused on profit are unaware of unintended consequences that could equate to the obliteration of state sovereignty?
One man questioning my view stated
He didn’t see the passage of HJR5 as a problem. One question I have is how redundant should laws, rules, policy and amendments and constitutional provisions be and would this not further complicate the law in addition to the expense of debating it and codifying it when it’s already part of the law making process? Let’s not forget mans nature to define and redefine the law over time to change its meaning for the benefit of whom lines their pockets. Would more comprehensive laws aid that process or distort it?
Another asked me, “If they’re already in the habit of delegating the rule-making stuff, I’d prefer that our elected officials at least review it rather than not.Kind of a good better best thing.Best is to have the legislature write all the rules
Better is to have them delegate it, but still oversee rules. Worst is to have them delegate rule-making and then have no say…”
In my view, This is a pragmatic, defeatist, subservient and less than ideal position considering our liberty is at stake with the passage of every law, rule and policy whether they are lawfully applied or not. It presumes that we can’t do anything about it anyway and we might as well do what we can to preserve what Liberty we can left, knowing we lose freedoms with every bill and every law passed.
The answer is not more law, more rules, delegating rules then creating more red tape and expanding government in an effort to create oversight over that expansion in government, it is to become educated in our fundamental principles of Liberty, the understand why constitutions were written, to become and maintain our education and apply what we learn to maintain those principles and to stand when necessary when something appears to be in question.
It is to then hold our elected officials accountable to those limitations of their power and authority and keep them within their perspective jurisdictions so that no expansion of government is possible nor the ability for government to delegate authority that doesn’t have lawful authority to do and to hold them to the written letter of the law in which the spirit of it rested and remember more than anything else, if contained or if controlled by forces led by profit in the hands of the few, will surely, as history has shown, will end in some form of despotism with the citizens funding not only the profits of the corporations but their own enslavement.
My point though is words themselves aren’t oversight and are not an enforcement mechanism, knowledge and action are!
If people want to take back the control of our legislature, the wording is already there. All they need to do is do it! No court cases, no exhaustive drain on the tax payer, they just strip the power from the NGO’s they gave it to!
I wonder if we have asked why the legislature in support of HJR5 aren’t reining in that abused delegated control since the creation of this bill clearly shows the concern for the abuse of power?
The easy way isn’t to create more bureaucratic oversight on those that abuse the power , it is to strip them of it! Period! If they have given unconstitutional power to an unconstitutional entity and now they want a constitutional amendment that forever cemented NGO’s to remain in rule making authority what sense does that make as it related to our liberty?
Is it possible that, that is the motivation right there?
From my position with knowledge of a multitude of perspectives, this would connect the dots understanding the implementation of Agenda 21 and would also confirm the plan outlined in Patrick Woods’ book “Technocracy rising” which I strongly urge all of you “Technates”(as opposed to citizens in a free state) to read that exposed the plan to move away from our constitution and be run instead fully by Non Governmental Agencies (NGO) like the radical environmentalists used by the United Nations (UN) to implant and finalize its agenda.
The power, and purpose of government is defined in our state and federal constitutions that, codified the spirit in which these provisions should be applied, meaning that the words on paper, motivated by the spirit of them clearly outline the way in which government was to run.
By the existing constitutional requirement of the Idaho constitution instead of suspending it routinely, Art.3 sec.15 which requires the reading in full all bills 3 times on 3 separate days on the floor of each house before a vote can be take. Would it not be clear to anyone that any written law should have rules to that law prior to its enactment into law and done by people that are affected by it rather than those that are immune from it?
It is well known that the legislature suspends the reading of the bills. So what is to keep them from suspending any other clause of the constitution or redefine its meaning since loose adherence or being used as general guidelines is all that is necessary? They don’t even adhere to their own bylaws in their own state convention!
My point here is, does the legislature have the authority to delegate rule making and if so, to whom and why and if rule making is abused why does the legislature not rescind that power if it were constitutionally delegated?
It’s like courts, the congress has the authority to rein in its control but won’t because they now use judicial indefference where they play “circle jerk” with the citizens, a political “hot potato” if you will. Simply stated if the legislature sees delegated power abused why the hell do they need words on paper when the enforcement mechanism isn’t words, that enforcement mechanism is knowledge and action!
The sad part of it all is that laws like this are becoming the rule rather than the exception and I fear,like u do with most bills that they will have catastrophic unintended consequences, one like this would be the push for an Article 5 convention to rein in an out of control federal government as somehow words will leap off that page and force congress to obey itself.
In a word, words have no enforcement mechanism and if they did, Idaho could save millions by abolishing our law enforcement!
Unless someone can change my mind and enlighten me on what I may be missing, I’m not only voting No on HJR5, I’m asking you to consider my thoughts before you vote.
For your convenience, the bill text is below.
The status of each bill, resolution, proclamation, and memorial is updated when the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House publish the un-official daily journals and should not be deemed official. The official bill actions are located in the final journal, which are maintained by the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House. The daily journals are published at the end of each legislative day.Full Bill Information
Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Note
HJR005 by STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES – Proposing an amendment to Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho by the addition of a new Section 29 to provide that the Legislature may review, approve or reject any administrative rule to ensure it is consistent with legislative intent and to provide that legislative approval or rejection of a rule is not subject to gubernatorial veto.
03/10 Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for Printing
03/11 Reported Printed; Filed for Second Reading
03/14 Read second time; Filed for Third Reading
Rules Suspended: Ayes 65 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 5, read three times – ADOPTED – 62-3-5
AYES — Anderson, Anderst, Andrus, Barbieri, Batt, Beyeler, Boyle, Burtenshaw, Cheatham, Chew, Clow, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Dixon, Erpelding, Gannon, Gestrin, Gibbs, Harris, Hartgen, Hixon, Holtzclaw, Horman, Jordan(Memmott), Kauffman, Kerby, Kloc, Loertscher, Luker, Malek, McDonald, McMillan, Mendive, Miller, Monks, Moyle, Nate, Nielsen, Nye, Packer, Palmer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Redman, Romrell, Rudolph, Rusche, Scott, Sims, Smith, Thompson, Troy, Trujillo, VanOrden, Vander Woude, Wintrow, Wood, Youngblood, Mr. Speaker
NAYS — King, McCrostie, Rubel
Absent — Bateman, Bell, Chaney, Shepherd, Wills
Floor Sponsor – Loertscher
Title apvd – to Senate
03/15 Received from the House passed; filed for first reading
Introduced, read first time; referred to: State Affairs
03/21 Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second reading
03/22 Read second time; filed for Third Reading
03/23 Retained on calendar
03/24 Read third time in full – ADOPTED – 34-1-0
AYES — Anthon, Bair, Bayer, Brackett, Rohn(Buckner-Webb), Burgoyne, Davis, Den Hartog, Guthrie, Hagedorn, Harris, Heider, Hill, Johnson, Jordan, Keough, Lacey, Lakey, Lee, Lodge, Martin, McKenzie, Mortimer, Nonini, Nuxoll, Patrick, Rice, Siddoway, Souza, Stennett, Thayn, Vick, Ward-Engelking, Winder
NAYS — Schmidt
Absent and excused — None
Floor Sponsor – McKenzie
Title apvd – to House
03/25 Returned from Senate Passed; to JRA for Enrolling
Reported Enrolled; Signed by Speaker; Transmitted to Senate
Received from the House enrolled/signed by Speaker
Signed by President; returned to House
Returned Signed by the President; Ordered Transmitted to Secretary of State