Penumbra is not a very common word especially relating to its origins. By proper definition it is described as follows: 1660s, "partially shaded region around the shadow of an opaque body, a partial shadow." It is more common today among law makers made popular by a supreme court case
that increased implied powers to the federal government that are not in the constitution. This "Penumbra effect" means that the federal government now can expand its authority if they feel like they can stretch a clearly defined power in the Constitution to include others not included.
In the two dissenting opinions, for which I would have strongly agreed, they clarified what is clearly true- that the courts allowed for the arbitrary and increased power they arguably should never have had. From the standpoint of principle, allowing any branch of government to find ways to expand their authority what was the antithesis of the intent of the Constitution so for the government to claim what powers they have is essentially handing them the pen to expand or contract that which was created to be static.
If rights were protected by limiting the government to few and defined powers, how could a court in itself decide to expand authority it didn't have? The Framers were worried about the incremental usurpation of authority which is why the power that the states gave to the federal government were in writing. To allow the judicial branch to grant "rights" also is allowing the courts to then play God since we all know that Unalienable Rights come from God and not government.
But what does Little have to do with a word that describes the expansion of powers of the federal government? For one thing, he is either weak or uninformed or a puppet to do the bidding for his stakeholders. Two, he abuses power and overreaches his authority by maintaining control to increase federal dependency. Third, he like most others that don't know what we know think we are a democracy and not a republic and also believes that the supreme court can rule and whatever the courts decide is law.
Little is a closet globalist and is dangerous to the free people in Idaho. Sadly most that live here are uninformed about the internal gnashing of teeth during the legislative session and how they do more to control than to protect our freedom. Little was in support of the Foreign trade Zones with Governor Otter, he is on the CCP friendly list with Communist China and refers to them as partners, he supports Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development which is Agenda 21 and the abolition of America in support of a one world governing entity, he doesn't listen to his constituents and is incredibly insulated by his corporate cronies that seem to pull his strings...and he is hell bent on maintaining his control over the legislature to the point of fighting with them...and people still vote for him?
Little from all I have seen is an old arrogant fool. In my attempts to get closer to him to find out otherwise, he lacks interest which should be a clear message to anyone. Most recently he is showing who he really is by almost demanding that the legislature has gone rogue. A few days ago, this man stood in a public press conference and lied to those listening. Among those lies, he states confidently that "the accusations that he is violating rights is patently false" which proves he thinks he has the authority to tell us what our rights are to justify his abuse of power. He also states that "federal dollars are your dollars" so basically we are just using our own money? Let me ask you something...If I gave you 100.00, is that your money? Yes! It used to be yours and now has become property for whom you gave it to. It is also subject to the terms and conditions, if any, set by the new owner in the form of strings!
This man seems to be delusional, lacks principle, consistency, decency and knowledge and to me, is completely unfit for the position to be the Governor of the People of Idaho. He is however fit to be a CEO of a corporation and I argue that he is. If this is actually true, and he was not forthright about it, it also makes him highly untrustworthy.
Little must be familiar with the Penumbra effect but I believe he believes that he has the lawful authority to take it to a new level and that level should be dependent upon his desires, not ours. Little enjoys his partnerships that increase his power and those that will work to secure his position for years to come if he is not rooted out.
Some say Little has the lawful constitutional power to declare an edict during an emergency. If this is true, it would be outlined in the constitution. If it is outlined there the next thing to consider is if the reason is legitimately warranted. Case in point, if the Constitution allows for the Executive to declare martial law, it doesn't mean he has to declare it...even so just because something is written, it doesn't mean it needs to be used or the powers expanded, especially without strict limitations.
Additionally, The other thing to consider if the lawful power exists, what powers then exist within that power and when does that limited power become abused? In other words, if the Constitution says he can declare Martial law or lock us down, does it include making the basic exercise of rights punishable by law as long as he says so an does this mean that he now has blanket arbitrary boundless power without any check on such abuse? Little and his supporters will tell you yes while an informed free people will not only say no but absolutely Heck no! Why?
First of all if that power exists, that power should be controlled and would also incorporate within it a check against a possible usurpation of power. In our constitutional system, for every power granted to any branch of government there is a check, without one, we face a possible dictatorship. If our republic was based on "We the People" and Ben Franklin indeed told Mrs. Powell we gave you a "republic if YOU can keep it," the power clearly should always remain in the hands of the people and not as a democracy but in the terms of a republic.
In Summary, its not always about what is written in a constitution that should be adhered to, it should be adhered to with the understanding of the spirit in which those words were written.
If the words of the Constitution were written to limit the power of government to prevent tyranny, and the words are consistent with the spirit in which it was written, how can it then be lawful or constitutional if the government then claims the power to limit the people they were to serve?
Finally, it is important to understand that the federal Constitution was Divinely inspired. You can tell by understanding our history and both the spirit and letter of the law. State constitutions I argue were not. I will tell you I am no fan of certain provisions of the state constitution but whether I agree with them or not, I understand they not only have a place but they have a mechanism to be altered and what I can tell you for sure, is that neither constitution can be altered or replaced by statutes at either the federal or state level, or by the "ruling" of the courts, they can only be changed by the passage of an amendment. Why do you think your government never tells you that? Because if you don't know, they control you.
As we depart today, think about all of the federal and state statutes and executive orders and policies that have undermined your freedom that your Constitution was to guarantee. Do you think they still think such statutes are constitutional? I can tell you Brad Little seems to think so.
If you are interested in joining a group to become more educated and active, I would love to hear from you.