The Need for Principles in Idaho Politics
Idaho has a problem. Our representatives lack principles. Let's look at some current evidence. Recently, voters passed Proposition 2, which seeks to expand Medicaid in our state. The problem? Like all socialist schemes, it forcibly takes money from all taxpayers, and redistributes it to those the state deems worthy. Yesterday, "The House Health & Welfare Committee… voted 7-5 to reject a proposed bill… to repeal" it. I don't have the right to force you to spend your money on my own pet projects, nor should you be allowed to force me to spend my money on yours. That's a pretty straightforward principle. Some proponents of Medicaid claim that they aren't for "redistributing wealth," they're just for "helping those in need," i.e., charity. Well, chalk another one up for principles! It isn't charity if you are forced to do it! There may even be some Idahoans who need their money even more than Medicare recipients, and who may not be deemed "qualified," and yet the state will still mercilessly rob them at gunpoint. How's that for charity? Another example: A few days ago, "Marsy's Law" (2018-HJR 8) passed the Idaho Senate, and is now being considered by the House. The problem? This same law has already been passed in other states and has been used to take guns away from citizens who were merely accused of something. You read that right, accused. No crimes were committed, and the guns were taken away without warning, before there was any sort of hearing, and without any crime having been committed! We are a nation that was founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." A straightforward and true principle, for obvious reasons. Plus, Article 1, Section 11, of the Idaho Constitution, closes with the following line: "Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." No one should have their Second Amendment rights taken away unless they have been found guilty of committing a felony. That's already the law, and it is another straightforward principle! Yet, dozens of Idaho lawmakers failed to see the hypocrisy and voted to approve HJR-8. Along with many other Idaho citizens, I sent a request to my representatives that they sign a pledge never to sign a so-called "Red Flag Law", such as Marsy's Law. Because this is based on a very straightforward principle, I didn't see why anyone should have a problem signing such a pledge. However, I received a response from Representative Rod Furniss stating that he felt it was his duty to consider every law that came across his desk. Really? Is there nothing on which we can take a stand based merely on principle? He later shared his opposition to signing this pledge on his Facebook page, and said that he was open to "facts and logic" that might change his mind. I provided the requested facts and logic but received no response. For the record, even Idaho's branch of the ACLU is against this law. The reasons for opposing these laws are very clear me, and I hope to you, as well. So, why don't our representatives get it? Sources: 1. 'House Health & Welfare rejects 2 bills to overturn voters, repeal Medicaid expansion,' idahopress.com, Betsy Russell, Feb 21, 2019. https://www.idahopress.com/eyeonboise/house-health-welfare-rejects-bills-to-overturn-voters-repeal-medicaid/article_1420f9cc-ae9b-59b8-98b7-295ba7e00daf.html?fbclid=IwAR0aG44AxNZwd41F-6mItn-gxdhqjfa1SiNX6HuJRp3wDDGtm6XoVFKeBhI 2. 'Marsy's Law passes Idaho Senate, heads to House,' idahonews.com, Scott Logan, undated, posted Feb 18, 2019. https://idahonews.com/news/local/marsys-law-passes-idaho-senate-heads-to-house 3. Article 1, Section 11, Idaho State Constitution. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/arti/sect11/ 4. '2018- HJR 8 MARSY'S LAW', www.acluidaho.org. https://www.acluidaho.org/en/legislation/2018-hjr-8-marsys-law
What Makes A Law Immoral Or UnConstitutional?
What Makes A Law Immoral Or UnConstitutional? This question was raised in the comments of a post (login required) on Senator Fred S. Martin's Facebook page recently. The subject was the recent vote to expand Medicaid here in Idaho. The answer to this question can be found in the words of America's Founding Fathers on the subject of "The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." "Since law is force, it should be restricted to the one purpose for which individuals may legitimately use force–to protect our natural rights," states Earl Taylor, Jr., of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. But what are "Natural Rights"? They are those rights given to every man and creature by their Creator, whether you believe that to be God or Nature. They are: life, liberty, and the right to property. Earl Taylor continues: "whenever a new bill comes before a legislative body, each member ought to ask himself.. "Do I have the right to use force against my neighbor to achieve this goal? Would I be willing to forcibly take his property, lock him in jail, or (in some cases) put him to death for failing to obey this law?" If a legislator isn't certain it would be just to do so, he should vote against the bill." According to George Washington, government is force, and, being force, what do they do? Deprive citizens of… life, liberty, and property. Did you notice that? Once a law is passed, we give the government the right to enforce that law at the end of a gun. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure that only just laws are passed! "Natural law was central to American thought even before the Revolution. For example, here's what Massachusetts patriot James Otis wrote in 1764 to oppose an unjust revenue act passed by the British Parliament: "The supreme power in a state is jus dicere [to declare the law only: jus dare [to give the law, strictly speaking, belongs alone to God.... There must be in every instance a higher authority, [namely,] God." On the topic of socialist schemes like Medicaid, then, how do we justify taking money from one citizen only to give it to another? God's law says that is theft! Does a man have the right to give his own money freely to another? Yes! That is God's way! The opportunity for charity, however, is removed when the government inserts itself and requires the giving. What's more, resentment is fueled, for the law is unjust. What, then, makes a law unConstitutional? Truly, it is the the same principles outlined above. Government is supposed to protect our life, liberty, and property, and indeed are sworn to do so. Yet, time and again, they pass legislation that does just the opposite! But what if, as in the instance of the Medicaid expansion bill, our representatives are asked to violate their sworn duty by the people? Well, what separates a Republic from a Democracy is principles! In a democracy, the people can do anything they like, as long as they can muster up a majority. If five people want the sixth's money, they can gang up on him to take it and redistribute it among themselves. Legal? Surely. Moral? Never. We are a country that is Constitutionally bound to govern ourselves by the laws of God, above all else, in the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen, and our representatives are especially bound to make sure those protections are never violated, no matter how many people beg them to do so. We are not a democracy! I urge you to read the National Center for Constitutional Studies' article, "The Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," and familiarize yourself with the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Then, send this article to your representatives. Let's remind them of Who they are ultimately accountable to, and of what their Constitutional duties are, so that we can all remain free. Sources: 1. "The Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," National Center for Constitutional Studies. https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-law-of-nature-and-of-nature-s-god 2. "Government Is Force," Sheldon Richman, FEE, September 16, 2011. https://fee.org/articles/government-is-force/
The Need for Principles in Idaho Politics
Idaho has a problem. Our representatives lack principles. Let's look at some current evidence. Recently, voters passed Proposition 2, which seeks to expand Medicaid in our state. The problem? Like all socialist schemes, it forcibly takes money from all taxpayers, and redistributes it to those the state deems worthy. Yesterday, "The House Health & Welfare Committee… voted 7-5 to reject a proposed bill… to repeal" it. I don't have the right to force you to spend your money on my own pet projects, nor should you be allowed to force me to spend my money on yours. That's a pretty straightforward principle. Some proponents of Medicaid claim that they aren't for "redistributing wealth," they're just for "helping those in need," i.e., charity. Well, chalk another one up for principles! It isn't charity if you are forced to do it! There may even be some Idahoans who need their money even more than Medicare recipients, and who may not be deemed "qualified," and yet the state will still mercilessly rob them at gunpoint. How's that for charity? Another example: A few days ago, "Marsy's Law" (2018-HJR 8) passed the Idaho Senate, and is now being considered by the House. The problem? This same law has already been passed in other states and has been used to take guns away from citizens who were merely accused of something. You read that right, accused. No crimes were committed, and the guns were taken away without warning, before there was any sort of hearing, and without any crime having been committed! We are a nation that was founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." A straightforward and true principle, for obvious reasons. Plus, Article 1, Section 11, of the Idaho Constitution, closes with the following line: "Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." No one should have their Second Amendment rights taken away unless they have been found guilty of committing a felony. That's already the law, and it is another straightforward principle! Yet, dozens of Idaho lawmakers failed to see the hypocrisy and voted to approve HJR-8. Along with many other Idaho citizens, I sent a request to my representatives that they sign a pledge never to sign a so-called "Red Flag Law", such as Marsy's Law. Because this is based on a very straightforward principle, I didn't see why anyone should have a problem signing such a pledge. However, I received a response from Representative Rod Furniss stating that he felt it was his duty to consider every law that came across his desk. Really? Is there nothing on which we can take a stand based merely on principle? He later shared his opposition to signing this pledge on his Facebook page, and said that he was open to "facts and logic" that might change his mind. I provided the requested facts and logic but received no response. For the record, even Idaho's branch of the ACLU is against this law. The reasons for opposing these laws are very clear me, and I hope to you, as well. So, why don't our representatives get it? Sources: 1. 'House Health & Welfare rejects 2 bills to overturn voters, repeal Medicaid expansion,' idahopress.com, Betsy Russell, Feb 21, 2019. https://www.idahopress.com/eyeonboise/house-health-welfare-rejects-bills-to-overturn-voters-repeal-medicaid/article_1420f9cc-ae9b-59b8-98b7-295ba7e00daf.html?fbclid=IwAR0aG44AxNZwd41F-6mItn-gxdhqjfa1SiNX6HuJRp3wDDGtm6XoVFKeBhI 2. 'Marsy's Law passes Idaho Senate, heads to House,' idahonews.com, Scott Logan, undated, posted Feb 18, 2019. https://idahonews.com/news/local/marsys-law-passes-idaho-senate-heads-to-house 3. Article 1, Section 11, Idaho State Constitution. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/arti/sect11/ 4. '2018- HJR 8 MARSY'S LAW', www.acluidaho.org. https://www.acluidaho.org/en/legislation/2018-hjr-8-marsys-law
Harvard Professor Preaches Historical Revisionism to Idaho Politicians, No One Notices
According to the March 8th Legislative Update email from Idaho's District 35, "Dr. David Moss, a professor at Harvard University’s Business School, visited Idaho’s Capitol last week to present his lecture on the U.S. Constitution." Sound promising? Think again! “As the guest of The McClure Center, Dr. Moss gave a presentation in the Lincoln Auditorium entitled, “Bringing History to Life: Creating the U.S. Constitution.” Dr. Moss is the author of Democracy: A Case Study, which is an in-depth study on the history of American democracy.” It's nice that some of our lawmakers took time out of their busy schedules to attend such a presentation, but no one seemed to notice that the entire premise was fundamentally flawed. If they had instead studied the Constitution, and the lengthy elaborations provided by the Founding Fathers themselves, they might have remembered that the United States is a republic and not a democracy! A republic provides for checks and balances outlined in the Constitution itself, the word of God, and the laws of nature, while a democracy, according to Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, "is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." The very idea of democracy should be offensive to liberty-loving Americans, for all one must do to legalize theft is convince the majority that they will benefit from it! Idahoans, unfortunately, are happy with their free lunch, as the wolves in the majority recently voted to plunder the other 40% to expand Medicaid, an already-offensive scheme. Some time in the past, frightened majority voters in idaho gave up their liberties to make themselves feel safer, in the form of mandatory vehicle insurance. Liberty-loving Americans have taken a stand in recent years against the government forcing them to purchase a healthcare product. How is this any different? It is theft, pure and simple. We now face further government encroachment with House Bill 95, which allows the DMV to refuse to register your vehicle, thereby revoking your God-given, natural, right to travel, unless you provide proof of insurance. Don't get me wrong, insurance is a nifty convenience that most of us are willing to pay for "peace of mind" that our expenses will be covered in the event of an accident. But by what principle do we command our neighbor to do likewise? “Keep in mind that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they themselves have. They cannot give that which they do not possess. In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement by another. Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent defending themselves, their property, and their liberty. For man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft. When he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only that which they had a right to do for themselves—nothing more. But suppose pioneer ‘A’ wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer ‘B’ has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer ‘B’ wishes to keep his property, pioneer ‘A’ has no just claim to it. If ‘A’ has no proper power to take ‘B's’ property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that ‘B’ give his extra horse to ‘A,’ they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.” The worst part about this professor's revisionist history is that it is "being introduced to high schools as part of the High School Case Method Project, which the professor oversees at Harvard Business School. At the Capitol, Dr. Moss met with 20 Idaho teachers who are using his high school curriculum in their schools." Translation: our children will be the next generation to believe that "majority rules" is enshrined in the Constitution. It is time for Idaho citizens to stand up for the principles that made this country great! Let us collectively reject democracy and socialism, nullify existing bad laws, and enjoy our own lives, liberty, and property! Sources: 1. Democracy quote from Ben Franklin courtesy of GoodReads. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7718791-democracy-is-two-wolves-and-a-lamb-voting-on-what 2. HOUSE BILL 95, legislature.idaho.gov. https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2019/legislation/H0095/ 3. "The Proper Role of Government," Ezra Taft Benson. (Latter-day Conservative) https://www.latterdayconservative.com/ezra-taft-benson/the-proper-role-of-government/ Image Credits: 1. Sheep photo by Keven Law, Los Angeles, USA. (Wikimedia Commons)