Letters to the Editor

Rose letter: Idaho government and lawsuits

Representatives not highly rated by the Idaho Freedom Foundation Index, often cede legislative authority and influence to the federally (sym)pathetic governor and his attorney general henchman. The inaction of lawsuit regarding the recovery of state lands is one example. Deputy A.G. Kane’s email to Rep. Lynn Luker, regarding the 2015 child support “treaty ratification” (S1067) stated, “successful legal challenge and financial loss is problematic.” Kane’s reasoning, “1% of the budget or $46 million is just not enough to establish coercion.” Additionally, Rep. Ryan Kerby’s May 14, 2015, email reads, “I signed a paper that was given to Gov. Otter stating I would support the House language of the new 1067.” SCOTUS decisions, National Federation of Int’l Business v. Sebellius (2012), Printz v. U.S. (1997) and New York v. U.S. (1992) are unambiguous and applicable to many administrative rules and House bills that enslave Idahoans. We, the People of Idaho, would like to know what percentage or dollar threshold is worthy of litigation involving coercion. H.B. 420 for a second year is presented as means to replace SBAC with alternative (MAP) testing, yet House Speaker Scott Bedke has assigned it to the death panel, a.k.a. Ways and Means Committee. The common-core theme is the “unrepresenting” support of overreaching federalism.

D. “Chuck” Rose, Grouse Creek Precinct committeeman, Sandpoint

  Comments