Idaho Capital

DPR_43 Constitution 101, The Elected Fail and the Prisoners Pay

Posted on Posted in Constitutional Studies, DallyPost Media, DallyPost Radio

In each conversation, I began with a reminder that closing arguments will soon begin in the case of these men and, to date, those who were elected and sworn to defend the constitution have remained silent. I asked each to immediately release a strongly worded letter to define their position and educate their constituents. The responses were deeply troubling.

Download episode


During the recent legislative session, I, and many of the people, sent instructions to all Idaho Legislators and Sheriffs. In all, over 5000 emails were sent. These instructions demanded that these elected officials, individually and in their official capacities, write a letter in opposition to the constitutional violations that led to federal charges, arrests and prosecution of five Idaho citizens. These are in relationship to the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff. These elected officials were directed have their letters published and distributed in a specific manner. To assist them in this action, a total of thirteen violations of the United States and/or Idaho constitutions were defined and described in the instructions. Shamefully, not one of these recipients responded.

This past Thursday, April 6, 2017, I placed many phone calls to many in the Idaho State Legislature. Today, I will discuss my conversation with three. For now, I will keep their identities private in the hope that they might be teachable… redeemable. For now, I will simply refer to them as Peter, Paul and Mary.

The Tenth Amendment is clear, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The purpose is to constrain the Federal Government to a few limited functions and keep the balance of power close to the people where their needs are best represented.

In each conversation, I began with a reminder that closing arguments will soon begin in the case of these men and, to date, those who were elected and sworn to defend the constitution have remained silent. I asked each to immediately release a strongly worded letter to define their position and educate their constituents. The responses were deeply troubling.

I mentioned to Mary that the Federal Government has no policing authority inside the states except for a few delegated powers that do not apply in this case. When she asked where I get that information, I responded, Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. She stated that it is difficult for her to take action at this time because just being able to show that the Constitution is violated is not enough. In this, she is mistaken. The Constitution is everything. It is our supreme law. Absolutely documenting an abuse is the strongest card she can play.

Peter quickly agreed that the Constitutional rights of these men have been grossly abused. He stated that if these men are found guilty, the people ought to “riot”. When he made the same claim a second time, I asked, “can I quote you on that?” and he answered that I may. I agree that the people should respond as strongly as legally possible, but the good legislator is just one year late. Where was he in the beginning?

Then he stated that it is the Judiciary that determines the constitutionality of a given law.

In the ratification conventions, people in each of the states argued for and against the Constitution. One of the biggest issues was to find a way to control usurpations of power by the Federal Government. Universally, it was decided that the States, being the parties to the compact (the Constitution), and being the creators of the Federal Government are superior and sovereign in every way. James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, wrote, “The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

My conversation with Paul was rather earth shattering. Again and again, he claimed that these Idaho men were receiving proper representation in the Federal Courts. How can this be when these very courts are exercising powers not delegated in the Constitution? And, if these powers are not delegated, they remain with the people or the states. And, if these powers remain with the people or the states, then the only proper authority is vested in that Nevada Sheriff and Prosecutor. They, having proper authority, reviewed the case and determined to not bring charges.

The Declaration of Independence provides a list of grievances against King George. One of these states, “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” Paul cannot see that precisely the same thing is occurring before his eyes and he has done nothing. The people of the State of Idaho have been taken from their homes, from the natural protections of their people, state and government to by tried in the King’s Court, a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution.

Finally, Paul issued a veiled threat. He suggested that if I publicly criticize him, I may affect the next election and that his replacement will not be so conservative as he. Conservative! What the hell does that mean? Virtually every politician in the state of Idaho, from the most decent to the most corrupt, runs on a conservative platform. The term itself is a mist, a vapor, a smoke without form or limitation or definition. Is there any person who can precisely draw the line separating conservative and liberal? No line can be drawn because there is no definition of these terms. Conservative representation is the worst thing for the people of Idaho.

We need constitutional representation. The Constitution is defined. We can look at any action and discover, with precision, if it is constitutional or criminal. It is precise, defined, established. It is the tool by which freedom can and ought to be preserved. Is there a sheriff or legislator in this state who possesses the ability to apply the Constitution for the benefit of the people? All evidence indicates that such a person does not exist.

How then will liberty be preserved where none there are who understand the basics of Constitution 101.

Leave a Reply