Navigation

Tag Archives | Idaho Sovereignty

Idaho Governor Signs Firearms Freedom Act into Law

By on April 8, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement 5

idaho-sealToday, Idaho Governor “Butch” Otter signed House Bill 589 (HB589), the Firearms Freedom Act. The Senate voted 27-7 and the House passed it by a vote of 53-15. Idaho is now the 7th state to pass the act into law, joining Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Arizona.

The bill makes law that guns or ammunition manufactured and sold in Idaho are to be exempt from all federal laws and regulation, including registration requirements – as claimed by D.C. under the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.”

The bill’s primary sponsor, Dick Harwood, told the House that the Idaho Attorney General opined that the bill is unconstitutional, but he said the intent is to force a Supreme Court case that backers hope will limit the scope of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said, “Let’s move this forward, let’s put the federal government’s back to the wall and ask them to explain why they need to get into commerce between myself and a family member.”

Under Constitutional case law as stands today, everything and anything is considered “interstate commerce” – from growing a plant in your back yard and consuming it in your home to making a choice to not purchase health insurance. Expecting the courts to turn around years of their own rulings is absurd.

If Harwood only wants to force a court case, it’s my opinion that he’s wasting his time. Decades of modern jurisprudence leaves it highly unlikely that the courts will suddenly find the original meaning of the Commerce Clause to be the law of the land.

The question, of course, is this – does Harwood know this or not? If he does, he’s clearly posturing to garner political support. If not, I believe he’s in for a rude awakening – and if he really wants to represent his people and protect their liberty, he’ll need to get a lot more backbone in his efforts.

Either way, passage of this bill is a good step forward for the 10th Amendment movement. At the very least, the more states that pass Firearms Freedom Acts, the more that the proper role of the government under the commerce clause can be brought into the public sphere. And the more we get the conversation going, the closer we’ll get to victory.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading 5

Idaho Legislature Passes the Firearms Freedom Act

By on April 3, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement 10

idaho-sealThe Idaho legislature has passed House Bill 589 (HB589), the Firearms Freedom Act. The Senate voted 27-7 and the House passed it by a vote of 53-15. Insiders expect Governor Otter to sign the bill soon, which would make the state the 6th to have pass the act into law – joining Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota.

The bill makes law that guns or ammunition manufactured and sold in Idaho are to be exempt from all federal laws and regulation, including registration requirements – as claimed by D.C. under the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.”

The bill’s primary sponsor, Dick Harwood, told the House that the Idaho Attorney General opined that the bill is unconstitutional, but he said the intent is to force a Supreme Court case that backers hope will limit the scope of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said, “Let’s move this forward, let’s put the federal government’s back to the wall and ask them to explain why they need to get into commerce between myself and a family member.”

Under Constitutional case law as stands today, everything and anything is considered “interstate commerce” – from growing a plant in your back yard and consuming it in your home to making a choice to not purchase health insurance. Expecting the courts to turn around years of their own rulings is absurd.

If Harwood only wants to force a court case, it’s my opinion that he’s wasting his time. Decades of modern jurisprudence leaves it highly unlikely that the courts will suddenly find the original meaning of the Commerce Clause to be the law of the land.

The question, of course, is this – does Harwood know this or not? If he does, he’s clearly posturing to garner political support. If not, I believe he’s in for a rude awakening – and if he really wants to represent his people and protect their liberty, he’ll need to get a lot more backbone in his efforts.

Either way, passage of this bill is a good step forward for the 10th Amendment movement. At the very least, the more states that pass Firearms Freedom Acts, the more that the proper role of the government under the commerce clause can be brought into the public sphere. And the more we get the conversation going, the closer we’ll get to victory.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading 10

Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law

By on March 17, 2010 in Health Care, Sovereignty Movement 20

idaho-sealToday, Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter welcomed legislative sponsors to his office at the Capitol today for the signing of House Bill 391 – the Idaho Health Freedom Act.

“Congress and the White House are working out their scheme for pushing through a healthcare ‘reform’ bill that has more pages than the U.S. Constitution has words. I guarantee you that not a single member of the House or Senate has a complete understanding of that legislation any more than they understood all the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001,” Governor Otter said. “What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control.”

The bill makes public policy for the state that “every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.”

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution codifies in law that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – and that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserve “to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

The Idaho Health Freedom Act specifically addresses this in regards to health care and the federal government:

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 52-18, and the Senate by vote of 24-10.

Otter is the first Governor in the nation to sign such a bill into law. In Virginia and Utah, both houses have passed a version of a health care freedom act – and governors in both states have given strong indication that they will sign. In 2009, the Arizona legislature passed HCR2014, which will put the question of Health Care Freedom to voters on the 2010 ballot in the form of a state constitutional amendment.

The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s health care freedom act tracking page

Continue Reading 20

Idaho HB 622: The Rule of Law

By on March 17, 2010 in Constitution, Money 0

constitutional-tenderDid you know it is the sworn duty of every state legislator to support the U.S. Constitution? Some current occupants of the Idaho state legislature do not see it that way.

Here are the rules:

Article 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: “…members of the several state legislatures…shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

And, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: “No state shall…coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;…”

And, Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho states: “…the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.”

Hubris Will Destroy Our Country

Legislators who believe the Constitution is a “living breathing document” that can be arbitrarily ignored, please, read what Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., a constitutional scholar, stated on February 21 of this year. “Any time senators and representatives treat constitutional limitations on their prerogatives as some kind of contemptible joke; they are in effect committing perjury.”

The “Expert” Syndrome

Others will say they consider the issue too complicated and it should be left to the “experts.” Because this rationalization for non-action is often heard, at the risk of sounding offensive, I want to make clear what is at stake. The ‘experts” in this case are the ones with a vested interest: the bankers, mercantilists, and career politicians. I mean no disrespect, but it is past time for lawmakers to start educating themselves and doing what is right for the people and the country.

Bill Denman, a member of our task force, said, “Since there are fundamental principles involved, we don’t have to rely on…the opinions of experts to resolve the ‘gold versus paper money’ or the ‘government control of money’ issues.”

Orwellian Doublespeak

The American people are saddled with legislators that disdain their oath and refuse to pick-up the constitution and read it. Paragraph two of this paper is not that complicated; it simply lists those fundamental principles, referred to by Mr. Denman. Legislators think they are above the rule of law, but they are not. “Lawbreaking is lawmaking” and “unconstitutional money is legal tender” are memes (themes) that remind us of George Orwell’s world of 1984. These concepts should not be in our world.

Constitutional Gold Abandoned Illegally

On the federal level, in 1971 the Federal Reserve System (Fed) officially abandoned the constitutional gold and silver mandate. Years of mismanagement of money supply by the Fed depleted our gold reserve backing. We could no longer honor redemption requests (namely, France wanted to exchange their paper USD for gold bullion). Today, the U.S. Dollar (USD), called legal tender or the Federal Reserve Note, has no gold or silver backing, and yet congressmen claim everything is perfectly legal, because they say it is.

Consequences

This failure to support the greatest constitution ever written in the history of man has abused and outraged the people. Today we face the consequences: big government enabled by central banking, a failing fractional reserve system funded by dishonest fiat money controlled by a few, and a deeply troubled economy.

Continue Reading 0

Idaho House Passes Firearms Freedom Act

By on March 9, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement 2

idaho-sealToday, the Idaho House passed House Bill 589 (HB589), the Firearms Freedom Act. The vote as 52-17.

The bill, which now moves to the Senate, seeks to declare guns or ammunition manufactured and sold in Idaho to be exempt from all federal laws and regulation, including registration requirements – as claimed by D.C. under the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.”

The bill’s primary sponsor, Dick Harwood, told the House that the Idaho Attorney General opined that the bill is unconstitutional, but he said the intent is to force a Supreme Court case that backers hope will limit the scope of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said, “Let’s move this forward, let’s put the federal government’s back to the wall and ask them to explain why they need to get into commerce between myself and a family member.”

Under Constitutional case law as stands today, everything and anything is considered “interstate commerce” – from growing a plant in your back yard and consuming it in your home to making a choice to not purchase health insurance. Expecting the courts to turn around years of their own rulings is absurd.

If Harwood only wants to force a court case, it’s my opinion that he’s wasting his time. Decades of modern jurisprudence leaves it highly unlikely that the courts will suddenly find the original meaning of the Commerce Clause to be the law of the land.

The question, of course, is this – does Harwood know this or not? If he does, he’s clearly posturing to garner political support. If not, I believe he’s in for a rude awakening – and if he really wants to represent his people and protect their liberty, he’ll need to get a lot more backbone in his efforts.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading 2

Idaho to Consider Constitutional Tender Legislation

By on March 4, 2010 in Constitutional Tender, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 5

constitutional-tenderIntroduced by Rep. Lenore Barrett in the Idaho State House yesterday is House Bill 622 (H0622), the Constitutional Tender Act. If passed, the act would make law that:

the state shall neither compel nor require any person to recognize, receive, pay out, deliver, promise to pay or otherwise use or employ any thing but gold and silver coin, in that form or in the form of a designated electronic ounce defined as and absolutely payable in a specified weight of specie, and convertible on demand into gold and silver coin through a specie exchange, as media of exchange

The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” State-Level Constitutional Tender laws seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver, electronic currency, or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver.

The intent of the bill is to prevent government supply and demand manipulation of the Idaho citizen’s money by providing an alternative tender administered by the citizens of Idaho. The Act preserves the individual’s freedom of choice to continue with Federal Reserve Notes, or adopt Idaho Constitutional Tender, effectively nullifying federal laws currently preventing this kind of exchange within the state.

“Constitutional Tender” bills have been introduced in six other states in the past year – most recently, South Carolina.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Constitutional Tender Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading 5

Health Care Nullification Passes Idaho House

By on February 11, 2010 in Health Care, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 9

idaho-sealThe Idaho State House has passed House Bill 391 (H0391). The bill, known as the “Idaho Health Freedom Act” seeks to make public policy for the state that “every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.”

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution codifies in law that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – and that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserve “to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

The Idaho Health Freedom Act specifically addresses this in regards to health care and the federal government:

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto.

The bill passed by a vote of 52-18, and has already had its first reading in the State Senate.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s health care nullification legislative tracking page

Continue Reading 9

Idaho H391: The Health Care Freedom Act

By on January 20, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 2

idaho-sealIdaho State Representatives Jim Clark, Lynn Luker, and Raul Labrador have House Bill 391 (H0391), which proposes an act to protect the right of free choice of health care services for the people of Idaho.

The language of the bill includes:

The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services.

Idaho joins Georgia, Ohio, Florida and a number of other states considering legislation or state Constitutional Amendments to effectively nullify, or resist any future national health care plan.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature.  To effectively nullify the law requires actions to prevent its enforcement within the state – something that James Madison referred to as “interposition” in his Virginia Resolution of 1798.

More from H0391:

No public official, employee, or agent of the state of Idaho or any of its political subdivisions, shall act to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any penalty in the state of Idaho that violates the public policy set forth in section 399003(2), Idaho Code.

New Hampshire recently introduced a bill to make law that not only makes federal restrictions of health care choices illegal in the state, but also expressly prohibits interference in these choices by federal agents and requires state agencies to interpose as a protection.
Click here to learn more.

CLICK HERE to see the Tenth Amendment Center’s Health Care Nullification Tracking Page

Continue Reading 2