This article is submitted by Dan Sukut of Kooskia, Idaho.
Here is a research piece I did on Governor Otter. Please take a moment and consider it. I am not sure who you are backing in the gubernatorial race but I have decided to go with Rex Rammell. He is bold, and obviously not a polished career politician. Neither is he perfect, but I think we can work with him. The alternative is Otter and after much research I don’t think it would be wise to back him. I did include references on the article. Thanks for your time.
Dan Sukut
Can we afford 4 more years of Governor Butch Otter?
The governor originally voted no on the Patriot Act and once said, “You cannot give up freedom, you cannot give up liberty, and be safe. When your freedom is lost, it makes no difference who took it away from you.”(2) Since then it appears he has reversed his position. At a speech in D.C. where he reintroduced the Safe Act in 2005 he said, “The PATRIOT Act is a valuable and perhaps even essential weapon against the forces of hate and violence and extremism. However, Congress has a duty to carefully balance the power of such a weapon by safeguarding the heritage of a free and open society. This bill is about helping Americans feel safe, in every sense of the word.”(3) Then on his website during the 2006 campaign for governor he stated, “much of the USA PATRIOT Act is needed to help protect us in a dangerous age of stateless zealots and mindless violence.”(4) Why does the governor praise and promote an act that he once voted against? The powers given the federal government by this act are dangerous, abusive, and have been recently renewed. The federal government already has more power than any government deserves. What has Governor Otter done to protect the people of Idaho from the Patriot Act? Has he asserted state rights and just said NO to it? Has he told the Feds that it will not be enforced in Idaho? No. He has done nothing to protect Idahoans from this abusive power.
Governor Butch Otter is now comparing the handling of the Obama Healthcare plan to the Patriot Act. He said, “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. 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.”(1) The question is, will the governor back down on this bill later like he did on the Patriot Act and say that Obama Healthcare “is a valuable and perhaps even essential” program?
It is true that the governor is threatening the Fed with a lawsuit if they try to enforce this healthcare legislation on Idaho. However, threatening the federal government with a lawsuit puts Idaho in a precarious position. If Otter exercises the threat it is highly unlikely Idaho he will win in federal court, not to mention the cost of the lawsuit to the people of Idaho. Further, Legislation and executive orders are just a bunch of words unless you are willing to stand by those words and do what you said you would do. This being the case, will the governor “cede” to the ruling of the Fed or will he have the courage to continue saying NO and stand on that part of the Constitutional contract found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? The governor’s past record in this regard is poor at best.
Speaking of the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act of 2005 was an offshoot of this and Butch Otter voted in favor of it.(5) Did I mention that Butch voted in favor of this controlling and intrusive piece of…well, legislation? This act federalizes our driver’s license and brings further federal government intervention to our lives. In 2008 Jon Hanian, spokesman for governor Otter, with regard to the implementation of the Real ID, said, “We’ve asked for an extension, but we still have serious concerns and reservations about it and its future here is to be determined.” (6) So, the future of the Real ID in Idaho has not been “determined” yet? Hmmm…Prior to this statement, in April 2007, Otter responded with a letter to a woman who wanted to know his position on the Real ID. He said, “I decided Idaho will not comply with this federally mandated program.”(7) Well…first the governor votes in favor of it, then later decides Idaho won’t comply. Then he says through a spokesman that he needs more time to think about whether it is in the best interest of the people of Idaho. While he is trying to make up his mind the act remains a threat. Why does Otter have trouble just saying NO to the Feds? The people of Idaho don’t want Real ID. Why can’t he make up his mind and do what he knows is right? Again, he continues to try and please the Feds while telling Idahoans what they want to hear. Governor Otter doesn’t really do what he implies he will do. In fact, he often seems confused. Is this a man we can depend on, or will he sell out Idahoans once again…just as he did with the Patriot Act?
How about his management of the Canadian Wolf? He feigns concern for the wolf population becoming over abundant and in January of 2007 makes a declaration to a large gathering of hunters on the Statehouse steps saying, “I’m prepared to bid for the first ticket to shoot a wolf myself.”(8) Well…Otter did not bid for the first tag but ended up with tag number 7637(9)…and there is no evidence that he actually hunted wolf. Now, more than three years later we find Idaho big game herds decimated by these federally introduced wolves. Further, many Idahoans raising various kinds of livestock have suffered great losses to herds and flocks as well as other farm raised and domestic animals. These wolves are also killing off other Idaho wildlife. How has Otter addressed this problem? He praises Idaho Fish and Game in his 2010 State of the State address for a job well done in controlling the over population of this predator. Hmm… Moreover, he continues cooperating with federal mandates while telling Idahoans what they want to hear…that he will take care of the problem. What is the moral of this story? Otter values his standing with the Feds more than the rights of Idahoans to conduct their own affairs. He is also afraid to “just say No” to the Feds and do right by the people he feigns to represent. By the time Butch Otter decides to find the courage to do what is right, and act on an issue in the manner of a true statesman rather than a mere politician, it will be to late. Can Idahoans afford to have Butch Otter continue in such an important and powerful position as governor?
Another important area of concern is Governor Otter’s position on taking money from the Federal government? In February 2009 Governor Otter said, “he wasn’t interested in stimulus money that would expand programs and boost the state’s costs in future years when the federal dollars disappear….”(10) So Otter is not going to accept the stimulus money because of the possibility of putting undue burdens on the people of Idaho, right? Well…the next thing we know is that Otter puts out a news release in March 2009 saying, “I have been clear from the start that I [accept ]this money with great trepidation. I have said repeatedly that we must not obligate ourselves here in Idaho to continuing expenditures based on programs or services that are started or expanded with this emergency cash infusion.”(11) So here we go again…Otter seems to know what is right at times but he cannot do what is right. The rest of the time he seems confused. He cooperates with the Feds while telling Idahoans that he will not cooperate with them. Is this a man that deserves the trust and confidence of the people? Can Otter ever really say NO to the Federal government? This seems a dangerous pattern in his character…dangerous to all Idahoans. Its no wonder he refuses to debate with other candidates. Governor Otter, a career politician, seems to be a confused man who lacks the courage to do what is right.
Perhaps Idaho needs to be purged of career politicians, who do not keep their word. Perhaps we should find among us those who are not afraid to do what is right and stand by the people no matter what. Then we as Idahoans must stand by them. To help do this there should be open forum debates with all the candidates for governor. The media presence in Idaho should set up and host it. This would give the people a fair chance of knowing where the candidates stand on the issues of today, that thus educated, they can better assess who should be the next governor of Idaho. Governor Otter should be invited to the debate as well as Keith Allred, Rex Rammell, Jana Kemp, Ted Dunlap and all the rest.
Dan Sukut of Kooskia, Idaho
copyright 2010
Dan Sukut
926 Big Cedar Rd.
Kooskia, Idaho 83539
935-2116
References
(1)”Otter to speak on Patriot Act dissent,” Idaho State Journal, 11/9/2003
(2) http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=43514&keyword=safe+act&phrase=&contain=
Speech to congress reintroducing the Safe Act on 4-6-2005
(3) Otter 2006 website 10-07-2006; vote-id.org;
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ogH1YXRhn0kJ:vote-id.org/PoliticianIssue.aspx%3FState%3DID%26Id%3DIDOtterCl%26Issue%3DCIDPatriotism+%22much+of+the+USA+PATRIOT+Act+is+needed+to+help+protect+us+in+a+dangerous+age+of+stateless+zealots+and+mindless+violence.%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(4) http://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/press/pr2010/prmar10/pr_023.html News release March 17, 2010
(5) see http://governor.ontheissues.org/House/Butch_Otter_Homeland_Security.htm#2006-108
(6) Real ID could mean real travel headaches Staff Writers, CNET News.com February 4, 2008 4:00 AM PST
(7) From the April 2007 Idaho Observer
(8) Boise Weekly January 17, 2007
(9) According to Sandra Lee a Lewiston Tribune reporter as reported on the Tribune blogspot here: http://www.lmtribune.com/blogs/tag/wolves/page/2/
(10) Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29279120/
(11) SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION ON THE STIMULUS PLAN
CONTACT: Jon Hanian (208) 334-2100
http://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/press/pr2009/prmar09/pr_015.html
Dear Friends and Family who love the Constitution,
We invite you to the initial 2010 Constitution Day Events Committee Meeting! This will be held on April 7th at 9:10 P.M. (maybe slightly later since Senator Hatch is holding a Town Hall at Orion Junior High from 7-9 P.M.). I commit that we will end by 10:15 P.M. sharp.
The purpose of this meeting is two-fold. First, we need to assess what our goals are and what we can reasonably do this year with the resources we have and may possibly receive. We need to think big, but it will be more important to think for effectiveness, and most importantly what is good, right, and helps move towards freedom’s holy light.
Second, we need to plan our activities in light of our organization and connections we have and can make.
Some proposed ideas brought forth so far include proposing a school assembly(ies?), Constitutional teaching by parents and/or Committee members in the schools, and similar activities as conducted last year. Next year, we could consider a dramatization. Religious freedom and the divinely inspired heritage of the Constitution will be key principles to foster. Youth, families, and our communities will be our target audiences.
Please feel free to invite family and friends (special invitation for youth) who you feel should be invited. We look forward to seeing you!
Jim Mackley for the Freedom Coalition
For more information or to give your opinion please call 1-801-731-9191
Dear Friends and Family for Freedom,
I would like to thank each of you who has provided your input as to actions we can take to promote freedom! These were discussed in a general meeting on March 13th. I feel we are being encouraged from beyond ourselves for immediate action in at least 3 areas of the 13 ideas discussed. They are as follows:
1) Constitution Day Activities including local school activities in the direction of teaching youth and our communities to feel the spirit of providence in our Constitution and in our lives;
2) Connecting with others of like minds, or where we have significant positive common ground in our community. For example, we need to connect with the Constitution, Republican, and Tea Parties as well as many other individuals and organizations. Unity in the common defense of freedom and mutual assistance against oppression may eventually be what binds us together;
3) and, Sponsoring a Constitutional Training Seminar with emphasis on implementation for our County Sheriff’s Department and local law enforcement as well as others we can invite.
Naturally, we believe in prayer and divine assistance in these endeavors. So, we feel good about promoting religious freedom, prayer in school, protection of religion from secularism, and strengthening the family for future activities .
Constitutional Education in the schools and in our communities is important. There is a real need for correct teaching of history and the true meaning and purpose of our Constitution and Government. This may effectively be taught through programs and dramatizations. Also, last week the Coalition for Constitutional Education has agreed to support an effort for public schools by Bert Smith of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. Contact Doug McGregor for information about this.
Practically speaking, it would seem prudent to help our local communities develop their own municipal constitutions. This might require reaching out to interface with groups such as the League of Cities and Towns.
In our meeting on March 13th, we also decided to start working on a mission statement. Jon Satterthwaite has suggested that we can do this through on-line communication using Google.doc. He says that if we have the internet, we’ll be able to access each others comments as we move forward. Also, we could provide a service by providing a blog website for community discussions of freedom concerning local politics, education, and business. Lastly, I want to thank Aaron Mackley for helping us to develop a website which should help us get our word out. I believe the website is moving ahead nicely. We’ll announce its operation soon I think.
Yours for true Freedom,
Jim Mackley
by Brion McClanahan
When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.
In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.
Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis the States.
The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”
The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.
A quick reading of the Constitution illustrates that national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, so obviously Engstrom’s blanket and simplistic statement is blatantly incorrect, but his distortion of the supremacy clause goes further.
The inclusion of such a clause in the Constitution was first debated at the Constitutional Convention on 31 May 1787. In Edmund Randolph’s initial proposal, called the Virginia Plan, the “national” legislature had the ability to “legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent…” and “to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union….” John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina challenged the word “incompetent” and demanded that Randolph define the term. Butler thought that the delegates “were running into an extreme, in taking away the powers of the states…” through such language.
Randolph replied that he “disclaimed any intention to give indefinite powers to the national legislature, declaring that he was entirely opposed to such an inroad on the state jurisdictions, and that he did not think any considerations whatever could ever change his determination [emphasis added].” James Madison, the author of the Virginia Plan, was not as forthcoming as to his sentiment. Ultimately, Madison preferred a negative over State law and wished the national legislature to be supreme in call cases. But he was not in the majority.
The Convention again broached a federal negative on State law on 8 June 1787. Charles Pinckney, who presented a draft of a constitution shortly after Randolph offered the Virginia Plan, believed a national negative necessary to the security of the Union, and Madison, using imagery from the solar system and equating the sun to the national government, argued that without a national negative, the States “will continually fly out of their proper orbits, and destroy the order and harmony of the political system.” Such symbolism made for a beautiful picture, but it belied reality.
To most of the assembled delegates, the national government was not the center of the political universe and the States retained their sovereignty. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina emphatically stated he “was against giving a power that might restrain the states from regulating their internal police.”
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was against an unlimited negative, and Gunning Bedford of Delaware believed a national negative was simply intended “to strip the small states of their equal right of suffrage.” He asked, “Will not these large states crush the small ones, whenever they stand in the way of their ambitious or interested views?”
When the negative power was put to a vote, seven States voted against it and three for it, with Delaware divided (and Virginia only in the affirmative by one vote). Roger Sherman of Connecticut summarized the sentiment of the majority when he stated he “thought the cases in which the negative ought to be exercised might be defined.” Since the negative did not pass, such a definition was unnecessary.
Thus, the federal government was supreme only in its enumerated powers and it did not have a negative over State law. Supremacy had limits.
By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:
This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].
Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”
Furthermore, in a foreshadowing of nullification, Iredell argued that, “It appears to me merely a general clause, the amount of which is that, when they [Congress] pass an act, if it be in the execution of a power given by the Constitution, it shall be binding on the people, otherwise not [emphasis added]. Other ratifying conventions had similar debates, and proponents of the Constitution continually reassured wavering supporters that the Constitution would only be supreme within its delegated authority.
Most bought their assurances, though to staunch opponents, the Constitution still vested too much power in the central authority. The States would lose their sovereignty, they argued, and as a result, these men demanded an amendment to the Constitution that expressly maintained the sovereignty of the States and placed limits on federal power. Even several moderate supporters of the Constitution embraced this idea.
Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “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.”
Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.
Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”
I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.
Of course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue. When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”
The original intent of both the “supremacy clause” and the Tenth Amendment indicate that Idaho and the other States challenging Obamacare are justified and correct and that the legal profession is either in the tank for the federal government or has not read either the debates of the Constitutional Convention and/or the State ratifying debates. This should make people like Engstrom and Siegel, rather than legitimate State law directed at unconstitutional authority, irrelevant.
Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D in American history from the University of South Carolina and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009).