The financial condition of the country and of many states across the Union continues to deteriorate. And there’s no readily apparent recovery in sight, even though the White House, evidencing its continued detachment from reality, is calling this the “summer of recovery.” With a net loss of 2.5 million jobs since January, 2009, and everything emanating from Washington creating more uncertainty in the private sector, there is little to motivate companies to begin rehiring.

This moribund economy is felt deeply at the state level. According to CNN Money, budget deficits for the fifty states could be as high as $260 billion in 2011 and 2012. Some states are essentially insolvent as revenues continue to diminish and politicians lack the spine to reign in profligate spending. California and Illinois, the two states with the highest budget gap, 49.3% and 47.3% respectively, are continuing to witness double-digit decreases in revenue due to the weakness of the economy. Their answer is to increase taxes and levy increased fees and fines in an attempt to make up the difference.

The least logical time to increase taxes is when the economy is struggling, as that takes more capital out of the hands of the citizens, especially small business owners who otherwise might be creating new jobs. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, confirms that at the federal and state levels, increased taxes “will be a serious drag on the economy at just the wrong time.”

We’re fortunate in Idaho to not only have a constitution which requires a balanced budget each fiscal year, but we also have a governor and legislative leaders who apparently are able to balance the states checkbook. Fiscal year-end (June 30) figures for the state validate the responsible and disciplined decisions made by Governor Otter and legislative leaders during the last legislative session, despite the criticism leveled against them by single-issue advocacy groups, especially the education lobby.

According to a press release from the Governor’s office, the state had to transfer $8.2 million from the State’s Permanent Building Fund to the General Fund in order to balance the budget at the end of the fiscal year. That means the Governor and legislative leaders were only off by three-tenths of a percent in their revenue projections. With a budget of $2.2 billion, that’s a remarkable accomplishment.

Commenting on the year-end figures, Governor Otter said, “Some people vigorously opposed our cautious, conservative approach to budgeting, and some still do. They…urge us to spend millions of dollars in make-believe money, and have nothing but contempt for any other view. Fortunately for Idaho taxpayers, common sense and a steadier hand carried the day. The Legislature and I did what any family does when facing financial trouble – we looked for savings, we thought about what we could do without, and we made do with less. We lived within our means, and we didn’t raise taxes.”

State leaders faced horrible accusations and headlines during the legislative session for the cuts they made in state expenditures. The final figures paint a picture, however, of discipline and proper priorities. Executive branch agencies are facing a net reduction in funding of 19.45% from FY 2009-2011, while the General Fund portion of the education budget was reduced much less, by 8.9%. And even with that reduction, the FY 2011 budget makes up 50.9% of General Fund spending going to public schools, which is the highest percentage of General Fund support since 1989.

While many would have us believe that state leaders were merciless with public education cuts, it appears they did everything they could to protect it while facing the daunting challenge of balancing the state’s budget in economically perilous times.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Maxine Bell said of the budget, “The past couple of years have been tough. Nobody likes cutting services or reducing support for public schools. I’m thankful that we have a Governor who’s willing to join us in this heavy lifting and open to working with the Legislature in making the tough decisions necessary to ensure our State government lives within the people’s means.”

Vice chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Shawn Keough said, “As painful as the budget was for us to construct, Idaho is in a better position than most states right now. We ended the fiscal year with a balanced budget, did not raise State taxes on Idaho’s families and caused no additional impact on State agencies and public schools.”

We have in Idaho a superb leadership committed to the public services we pay them to provide for us, while concurrently they’re pragmatic and realistic in maintaining the state’s solvency and fiscal viability. Governor Otter and the state’s legislative leaders should be commended for protecting our public and collective interests. If only we had such sagacity and fiscal responsibility at the federal level.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Once, I heard an attorney on a radio talk show state that the Supreme Court acquired jurisdiction over religion in America when a lower federal court interpreted a case as a violation of “the separation of Church and State,” under the “establishment of religion clause,” in the 1st Amendment. This lawyer was trained to believe it was the binding law of the land.

This is where the entire legal/judicial system is pathetically out of tune with the intent of the Framers of the US Constitution. Lawyers and judges no longer refer to the Constitutional Convention Notes by Madison, nor the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison and Jay to obtain the Framers’ crucial INTENT. They merely reference the Supreme Court’s own self-serving, usurpations of authority.

To begin with, the foundation stone, the bottom-line principle, demonstrating the Framers’ INTENT in the very fabric of the Constitution itself, is the principle of LIMITATIONS of power on the federal government, the DIVISION/SEPARATION of powers among the three branches, and the CHECKS AND BALANCES on power between the three branches.

Only the Legislature (Congress) may make LAW, and is deliberately limited to the 20 powers specified in Article 1. The Executive is limited to 7 specified powers in Article 2, none of which permits making LAW. The Judicial is limited to 11 powers of jurisdiction specified in Article 3 (reduced to 10 by the 11th Amendment), limiting its jurisdiction to rulings on the Constitutionality of federal laws only, passed by the federal legislature.

ALL OTHER POWERS ARE LEFT TO THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE!!!
The people are the ORIGIN of all political power, and the people create their government to serve their best interests, through elected representatives.

1. The lower federal court, in the case referenced above, had no jurisdiction to begin with. Religion is exclusively a States’ Rights issue.
2. The 1st Amendment INTENT was to prevent the federal government from establishing/requiring a “state” religion – an oppressive condition from which the Framers had just liberated Americans in the Revolutionary War for independence. The Framers intended the people to be free to worship as they chose, without coercion or interference from government or others.
3. The same Framers who wrote and signed the Constitution in 1787, stated in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance their INTENT that new States being formed out of the Northwest Territory should encourage the schools to teach knowledge, religion and morality. Education also is exclusively a States’ Right. Morality (right & wrong) is a function of religion.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

America is being usurped into the very status the Framers fought and bled to prevent, a federally-dominated center of power. The US Supreme Court majority arrogantly says that “the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.” America is being held hostage by the feds: led by the judicial branch, supported and unchallenged by the executive branch, and enabled by a legislative branch that is too anesthetized by partisan politics and their re-election egos to even see America’s near-terminal diagnosis as “The United Socialist States of America” (USSA). Sound familiar?

Where are the hoards of lawyers, judges, attorneys general, state governors, state legislators, federal legislators, university law professors, ministers, free-speech journalists, high school teachers of civics and American Government and angry American citizens?? Doesn’t anybody study the Constitution and believe what they read? The Framers deliberately caused it to be written in citizen language rather than legal largesse. Americans are criminally over-taxed and over-regulated, but tolerate it as “normal,” just as Canada and European states accept their socialist existences. We have as long a list of serious grievances against government today as the American colonists listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Bob Webster

It was rather shocking to learn that a federal district judge, Royce Lamberth, issued an injunction against the Obama Administration yesterday, prohibiting it from spending federal tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research.

The lawsuit against Obama’s plan to fund the destruction of human embryos in the name of “scientific research” is being brought by two private companies who are engaged in ethical stem cell research, and who objected to the diversion of federal resources to companies and universities focused on destroying tiny human beings in a mad search for the ills of human kind. The federal court had to agree that Obama’s Executive Order (issued in January of 2009) violated the Dickey-Wicker language enacted by Congress as a rider to various appropriation bills. This law prohibits the use of federal funds in the destruction of human embryos.

It is unclear from news reports whether federal money has already been spent on embryonic stem cell research, or whether the court’s injunction would halt money already awarded by Obama’s government.

Nevertheless, it is an historic development in the battle to protect human life. It also underscores the importance of elections, and the brilliance of the checks-and-balances built into our constitutional government by the Founders.

We are not yet at the point where the Executive Branch alone governs our nation, and the Abortion Lobby will have to persuade both houses of Congress that the restriction on federal funds must be set aside – something not even Speaker Pelosi has been willing to do heretofore.

As an aside, we note that Judge Lamberth has been a federal judge since 1987, after being appointed to the bench by America’s 1st Pro-Life president, Ronald Reagan.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

It doesn’t matter what religion our president adheres to, or if he has any religion at all. The Constitution precludes that as a litmus test for public office. President Obama has been engaged in an outreach effort to the Muslim world that seems to be failing. The possibility of a mosque being erected as a victory monument near the site of the World Trade Center and his ill-advised support of that project is one more element of that outreach effort.

But all this outreach has confused many Americans. A Time Magazine poll last week indicates more than twice as many Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim than when he was elected. Again, for the most part, it shouldn’t matter what his religion is, but it does matter that we as a nation are nearly halfway through his first and only term and we are more confused about that aspect of him than we were before he was elected.

The abundance of empirical evidence based on his actions and speeches manifest at the very least, a preferential treatment for the Islamic faith. He proudly proclaimed in his Turkey speech that America is not a Christian nation. His apology tour continued in Cairo, Egypt where he continued his profuse apologies to the Islamic world for all the “evil” the U.S. has perpetrated against the Islamic world. His first sit-down interview as president was with Al-Arabiya TV. NASA will no longer be flying shuttles into space, instead, their prime objectives, and “highest priority” is “Muslim outreach.”

Add to that the “dissing” of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of one of our closest allies, Israel. Also inscrutable is the allocation of $900 million to Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, one of the most proactive terrorist organizations in the world and an avowed enemy to Israel and America. He was, from our perspective, amazingly reticent regarding the democracy movement in Iran, with the perhaps unintended consequence of supporting the existing extremist, anti-American, Islamic Mullah regime of that nation.

He abandoned the tradition of his predecessors of an interfaith prayer in the White House for the National Day of Prayer, yet he continued George Bush’s practice of hosting a celebration of Ramadan, an Islamic holy day, at the White House. So he prays with the Muslims in the White House, but not with the Christians.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Obama referenced “…my Muslim faith…” which prompted Stephanopoulos to have him correct it to “my Christian faith,” which many have conjectured was a Freudian slip.

He never has, to my knowledge, publicly accepted the fact that the Fort Hood shooter was a terrorist motivated by anti-American, Islamic-extremism. In fact all references to Islamic extremists engaged in Jihad against the U.S. and the West have been stricken by the administration. Their politically-correct change in parlance does nothing to mitigate the threats posed by those motivated by religious fervor.

In his Cairo speech, Obama committed to allow American Muslims to fulfill their obligation to “zakat.” Zakat is a charitable requirement of all faithful Muslims that requires equal distribution to eight categories, including “military operations.” You know, the kind of operations Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaeda are engaged in.

So regardless of what his religion is, it’s evident that his administration has done everything possible to reach out to the Muslim world to ameliorate their perception of us. Perhaps the only thing they haven’t done in their outreach program is to erect minarets on the White House grounds for calling morning and evening prayer. This is perhaps a little surprising since he once said that the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.” He even recited it with a “first class Arabic accent” in a 2007 New York Times interview.

In 2008, Zogby International polled people in the quasi-friendly Muslim countries of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, to ascertain their disposition toward the United States. Most respondents, 83%, viewed the U.S. “somewhat” or “very” unfavorably.

If we assume that, as the administration has stated, that their outreach to the Muslim world and the open support of Islam by the president is to improve relations with them, we must conclude their efforts have failed. In those six “friendly” Muslim states, now 85% view the U.S. “somewhat” or “very” unfavorably. That’s actually an increase in their negative perception of us.

In the end it doesn’t matter what the president’s religion is, as long as he espouses fundamental American values and tenets of our republic. And that’s where an increasing majority of us take issue with this president. And since his campaign to reach out to the Muslim world is failing, perhaps we can reassess NASA’s prime objective.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The confirmation of another pro-abortion ideologue to the U.S. Supreme Court is a sad day for the pro-Life movement – and for America.

It was a predictable event, but we are disappointed by the number of Republicans who crossed over to support Obama’s agenda. Particularly annoying is the vote by Lindsay Graham. At one point he seemed like a solid citizen: conservative, practical, principled. Since his election to the U.S. Senate, and his immersion in John McCain’s political waters, he has just continued to defy his conservative heritage and home state by becoming the new poster child for “GOP moderate”.

Sen. Shelby captured the moment during his debate, when he explained, “Put simply, Ms. Kagan is a political activist, not a jurist.”

During hearings, Ms. Kagan attempted to explain away her dark work for Bill Clinton in finding a strategy to defeat the Ban on Partial Birth Abortions. Her answer to senators – that her writings were merely a service to a pro-choice president – failed to persuade anyone. It is clear from her efforts to deny, obscure, and even hide the medical science around partial birth abortions that she is a true believer in the rite of abortion.

No wonder her fellow traveler – Justice Ginsburg – expressed “exhilaration” at having a young, vigorous ally join her on the court.

Long after America has turned its back on Barack Obama, we will have to suffer the evil of his legacy on the nation’s high court; children yet conceived, most of all.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

My daughter, Staff SGT Brooke Corson, finished her two year stint in the Army and maintains contact with some of the guys that are still on active duty in Iraq.

This is a recent email she received from a buddy:

If you have an organization that wants to donate items, the things we need are toiletries and snacks. The things we would like are golf equipment in both left and right handed. and other niceties. Please remember I have 150 men and 15 females in my unit.

He also says things that they need badly are foot powder, powder to use after showering, baby powder, and multi-vitamins! Guys, this is something concrete that we can do! Let’s overwhelm them and let them know that WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEHIND THEM!

(Does anyone have a contact for supplements?)

Here is the !SG’s address:
1SG Michael Jones
Bravo Company 3-7 IV
APO AE 09333

Andi Elliott

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Sometimes metaphors work, and sometimes they don’t. There are sometimes more differences than there are similarities, yet it appears that Chuck Klosterman, a writer for Esquire and other publications, is onto something.

“Right now,” he said, “we’re like a nation of Kevin Arnolds (from a TV series); being likable is the only thing that seems to matter to anyone. You see this everywhere. Parents don’t act like parents anymore, because they mainly want their kids to like them; they want their kids to see them as their two best friends. This is why modern kids act like animals. At some point, people confused being liked with being good. Those two qualities are not the same. It’s important to be a good person; it’s not important to be a well-liked person. It’s important to be a good country; it’s not important to be a well-liked country. And I realize there are problems with America. But the reality behind those problems has no relationship to whether or not France (or Turkey, or Winnie Cooper) thinks we’re cool. They can like us, they can like like us, or they can hate us. But that is their problem, not ours.”

Politically, especially on the international stage, we are seeing more and more discontent with America. We are not well liked, nor are we respected by many around the globe. And who can blame them? The leader of our nation offends and publicly castigates our closest allies, reneges on promises to our friends, and heaps praise on our avowed enemies, all the while groveling in public ignominy lamenting of our nation’s flaws and errors. If there was a recipe book for politicians on how to ensure their country would not be liked or respected, our president could author it. He has compiled quite the anthology already.

Socially and culturally, there seems to be much truth to Klosterman’s observations as well. We have long departed from the “Leave It To Beaver” era of parenting where values and respect were the foundation of the parent/child relationship. Parents want to be “friends” with their kids, so values and respect take a back seat to child rearing, which has the natural yet undesirable unintended consequence of moral relativism in the children. There is less and less of a sense of right and wrong, and parents allow their children to engage in all kinds of promiscuous and self-destructive behavior, not wanting to press issues of morality for the sake of being “friends” with their kids. They are facilitators and accomplices in their kids’ aberrant and destructive behavior.

It also was the norm not long ago that other adults would often serve as proxy parents for misbehaving children. Adult friends and neighbors would look out for others’ children and reprove them for recalcitrant behavior and report them to their parents for proper disciplining. It seems most adults these days have bought into the same notion of being friends with the local kids rather than acting like adults and looking out for their welfare. No wonder we as a culture have regressed so far. Certainly there are other factors, but this fundamental societal breakdown, this shift from being good to being liked, has to be at the top of the causal list for our social degeneration. I think Hillary Clinton was right, it does take a village.

As Klosterman pointed out, being liked and being good are not synonymous. Neither are “unconditional love” and “support” synonymous. Generally we love our children regardless of the hurtful, stupid, and self-destructive things they do. But do we support them in their actions? If my child wants to commit suicide do I support him in his effort? Of course the notion is ludicrous, and so is it casuistic and specious to think parents should support their children in any other self-destructive behavior. But then, to the parent who prefers to be liked than to be a real parent, maybe the two are indeed synonymous.

There are studies bearing this out as well. Code Blue, a 1990 report by a blue-ribbon panel on the health of American teenagers, warned that “never before has one generation been less healthy, less cared for or less prepared for life than their parents were at the same age.” The experts concluded that the teens’ deteriorating condition was due to their behavior and not to physical illness.

Perhaps the distinction of being liked versus being good is just the reincarnation of the classic Platonic distinction of form versus substance. Someone’s nice or comely, and in today’s world those characteristics have more weight than character, integrity, and substance. What a sad commentary that we pass to successive generations not only a multi-generational national debt that they may never be able to repay, but also a collective social amorality where character matters less than aesthetics and likability.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

How do the mainstream media sources decide what to report and what not to? How do they decide how to cover the stories they do report? How do they deal with undesirable stories that are just so big they can’t be ignored? This past week we were given a glimpse into how the oligopoly of mainstream media outlets function, and it includes print, electronic media, and internet news sources. And it’s not pretty.

Many of us have long been aware of the biases of the mainstream media. The way they cover certain issues, politicians, and events reveals much of the writer’s prejudices. You don’t have to look far for examples. They frequently take a story, and then interweave their biases throughout their recapitulation of the event by using certain sources, certain quotes and excluding other sources, and by inserting subjective assumptions and conclusions into everyday events and stories.

Recently it was revealed that Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Newsweek, for the past few years has been maintaining an exclusive online group he identified as JournoList, which was comprised of about 400 writers, reporters, bloggers, media representatives, academics, and political activists. Not surprisingly, the participants in his exclusive cadre of media hounds did not represent the full political spectrum, but only the left side of it.

The closed and controlled nature of the group facilitated an open exchange of ideas between these media gurus on how to deal with stories that potentially were damaging to their causes and candidates, and how to shape reporting in their favor. The group was in full swing throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, and was influential in shaping and controlling mainstream media reporting about the Obama campaign.

For example, when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright started to become a problem for the Obama campaign, Chris Hayes of the Nation, told the group to bury the Wright scandal. “What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said. And it was obvious from media coverage on the issue that Hayes’ counsel was heeded, as it was hard to find any serious reporting on the issue from the news networks and primary print media sources.

Dealing with the same issue, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” Ackerman may not be a household name for media prowess, but he should be now. His suggested tactic has been adopted as universal strategy to deflect all critics of the current administration’s policies. By ascribing critics as racists, the issue is deflected, and the debate is no longer about the legitimacy of a policy or a candidate.

I remember when Mark Balzer, a Journal columnist, wrote back during the presidential primary that anyone who was critical of then-candidate Obama would be accused of being a racist. As prescient as he was, little did any of us know that there was collusion at the highest levels of political reporting that assured fulfillment of his prediction.

This certainly explains why all the major media sound the same when reporting political issues. As Fred Barnes quoted in the Wall Street Journal, they’re very much like a flock of birds resting on telephone lines. One decides to fly to a different line, and they all follow.

It’s no wonder then that Fox News is so despised and reviled by the mainstream media. They were one of few media outlets not implicated in the JournoList collusion. One member of the group, a UCLA law professor, went so far as suggesting that Fox News had to be shut down, one way or another. This should not surprise us, since those who are most ideologically driven despise dissent and alternative perspectives, and do all within their power to curtail serious debate.

Once heralded as the Fourth Estate, mainstream journalism has become little more than a propaganda machine for political activists who clandestinely collude and conspire on how to stymie debate and dissent. But this whole affair should pique our inquisitive natures as human beings, and make us much less like sheep thinking the way a select few conspire to make us think, and to actually act like the sentient beings we are and question sources, especially those of the herd mentality. With media consumption, as with retail purchases, the rule of caveat emptor applies even more significant: “buyer beware.”

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth…” The JournoList scandal illustrates how far journalism has willfully digressed from the objective dissemination of information that it should be engaged in.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

There are some amongst us who seem to derive great pleasure in assaulting and insulting those of us who believe in God. It’s as though their raison d’être is to impugn the character, intellect, and faith of we “bitter clingers.” One pontificates on inconsistencies in the Bible, and advances that as sufficient reason to discredit any faith based in that holy writ. The other seems to think we who are classical liberals and believe in literal interpretation of the Constitution, are also despicable sots who undoubtedly believe in literal interpretation of the entire Bible.

I know, these are opinion pieces, and as such, they’re entitled to theirs, and have obviously been granted a forum to express them. But the predictable consistency in their assaults on faith is monotonous and wearisome.

And they’re not alone in their religious assaults. Academics and media hounds seem to thrive on the disapprobation and scorn they can heap upon people of faith. But then, it doesn’t seem to be universally against people of faith, but more accurately, Christians. They say nary a word about Muslims, even the extremists that think “infidels,” even “people of the book” like Christians and Jews, must be brought to Allah, one way or another. Their method or conversion tool of choice is a suicide bomb. And other religions are praised and supported to ostensibly illustrate their “objectivity.” But Christians are just no more than “bitter clingers” who have to be discredited!

There are several aspects to this practice that are disconcerting, but that we should be attentive to. Those who consistently belittle Christians and the object of our faith consider themselves to be the enlightened ones, or the more erudite amongst us. They typically hold themselves up as the bastions of societal tolerance. They are the ones who fully embrace the politically correct version of diversity, and may actually sport one of those bizarre-looking “Coexist” bumper stickers made up of the world’s religious symbols. For some inexplicable reason, Christians are excluded from their pantheon of acceptable religious groups. It’s just not PC to tolerate Christians, they are rather to be scorned and ridiculed.

And since the assailants of Christianity view themselves as more enlightened and erudite than the rest of us, it’s in the spirit of noblesse oblige that they seek to destroy and invalidate anything that even smacks of Christianity. They will condescend from their ivory towers of academia, in tone as well as tome, to belittle and crucify anew the tenets and foundation of the Christian faith.

Perhaps they attack Christians because we’re the low-hanging fruit on the monotheistic tree of world religions. We’re the largest and easiest target for them, and since the majority of American Christians are white we are a politically-correct target for them to display their erudition against, and through their hubris, denounce our faith. We’re also safer targets, since we’re unlikely to behead their cartoonists for disrespectful renderings of Christ, or blow them up for their heterodoxy.

All persons of belief, regardless of label, should thoroughly examine their belief system intellectually and logically, as well as spiritually. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah had it exactly right when he said, quoting the Lord, “Come now, and let us reason together.” We’re sentient beings and must, and can, intellectually resolve the issues thrust upon us by the arrogant who seek to belittle or demean our faith.

When a writer attacks constitutional literalists by making it synonymous with Biblical literalism, he’s being doubly politically correct by targeting not only Christians, but conservatives. To disingenuously compare a legal document to a compilation of religious writings is ludicrous and specious. I rather doubt the writer was as glib about literal interpretation of his employment contract with his university!

I’m impressed with the tenet of the predominant religion of this area, which states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Now that’s tolerance I can believe in!

While ostentatiously parading their self-inflated, yet distorted sense of objectivity and “tolerance,” the antagonists of Christianity are, to the contrary, proving their bigotry and biases, couched in academic terms. In their blighted zeal to denounce the simple-minded Christians, they have embarked on a jihad of their own to replace Christian faith with a godless secular humanism, devoid of Christianity’s supposedly arcane and anachronistic values. They flaunt their bigotry and call it objectivity, and their disdain for anything Christian and call it tolerance. Those who seek to destroy eschatological faith understand not the relationship between the two. I believe as John Donne, the English poet, who said, “Reason is our soul’s left hand, faith her right.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from “any civil process” while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho’s Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases…shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof…

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase “any civil process.” An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart’s allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, “any civil process.”

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: “That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.” 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)…

Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people’s voice was protected and uninhibited:

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. “In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence.” Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary “Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial… [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House’s office received a subpoena for one of the speaker’s administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist’s tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be “subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature….” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

“…the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public’s right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote.” [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same “any civil process” language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

“This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator’s paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. “It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature.” Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.

The use of the words “subject to” means that the member is not “liable to” the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties….” Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads “A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session.” The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator’s personal affairs. …such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session.” Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of “any civil process” should be granted during the constitutional described time periods… When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right… Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. “Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators.” Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart’s side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon(1) and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.(2)

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of “income,”(3) to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions(4) and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session…is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama’s request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?

Not only are Rep. Hart’s accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place…to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon\’s_Enemies_List
2. archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml
3. www.constitutionalincome.com
4. It has been reported in the press that the IRS’s denial of 100% of Rep. Hart’s business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart’s refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.