Convention of States could be unpredictable
Open note to Dale Courtney:
I just completed H.W. Brands’ book, “Founding Fathers,” which relates how the current U.S. Constitution was formulated. Did you know, the original intent of the Philadelphia Convention in 1789 was not to develop a new constitution, but to improve on the Articles of Confederation? That’s the fear of most constitutional scholars: If you call for a Convention of States, precedence indicates a new constitution may be the end result.
You mention several issues conservatives would want to include in any revision, mostly focusing on individual and state’s rights. Well, liberals have some issues they would like to change too, like doing away with the Electoral College, a reinterpretation or — dare I say it? — the elimination of the Second Amendment, equal rights for all people, and the protection of women’s reproductive rights. Oh, and, maybe a 20-year term limit on Supreme Court justices with mandatory retirement at age 70, whichever comes first (I could see that with all elected officials too, personally speaking).
A big issue would be how to select the delegates to such a convention. Would it be based on the number of people in a state? Would it be only one, or two, delegates per state, regardless of the size of the state? Would it be something like the Electoral College?
It is easy to call for a Convention of States, but it is very hard to implement it, and the outcomes could be unpredictable. Let’s just call the whole thing off.
Wayne Beebe
Pullman
Who’s responsible?
The proposed Harvest Hills turbines could be taller than the Space Needle. What happens at the end of their lifespan? Why can’t the county commissioners negotiate, change codes, or whatever to mandate that Harvest Hills, or its probable many successors, be held completely responsible for the complete removal of all remnants and complete restoration of the affected lands when it is decommissioned? Will the landowners be held accountable for their removal?
Also, why can’t the current owner on record at any one time of this project also be held completely responsible for any damages to property, whether to the actual sites where they are located or adjacent properties, in the event of any catastrophic occurrence? Couldn’t this be written into any contract in advance to signing?
The project will most likely get EFSEC approval (full or modified) and we know what the governor will do. Harvest Hills won’t necessarily care because they will cut and run, but if this was mandated to all future owners, maybe they would reconsider their interest because maybe the future owners may not be so inclined to purchase the project if they were to be held fully liable for these expenses.
The commissioners very well may not be able to stop the project, but they could certainly make it immensely complicated, and save the tax payers from footing any additional future expenses, since they will have already helped pay for construction and operation through government subsidies. Please contact the commissioners with any concerns.
Todd Imeson
Colfax
Foreman legislates against Idaho women
District 6 State Sen. Dan Foreman has delivered on his campaign promise to make female bodily autonomy a criminal act.
Idaho is competing with Alabama, Arkansas and Missouri for being the state with the most restrictive laws. Sadly, Idaho is also competing for gynecologists and losing to states that recognize and prioritize women’s health. Pregnancy, never an easy condition, gets more hazardous as the availability of medical attention drops.
Foreman has also proclaimed, in several rallies and town hall meetings, that ours is a Christian nation. There is abundant evidence to the contrary, but that doesn’t seem to stop the lies.
The U.S. Constitution was written by men who had known religious persecution up close and personal. Their determination to get free of British rule tracks closely with their desire to liberate the citizens of our new nation. Evidence in the Oath of Office clause (Article 6) states all our elected officials will be “bound by an oath (or affirmation) to support the Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification.” And if that is not enough proof for the good Senator, there is the First Amendment to the Constitution. Being first, I imagine it was top of the agenda for most of the ratifiers of the new Constitution.
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) enshrine individual freedoms. Right along with freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, comes the freedom of religion.
So instead of being proud of the freedom of all our peoples to practice religion (or not) as we see fit, this guy wants to lie about the U.S. Constitution. He legislates against Idaho women, seemingly believing they are incapable of making their own choices.
And now he wants another term.
Zena Hartung
Moscow
