TVOI News (Boise, Idaho) In the run-up to the Special Session of the Idaho Legislature, the misdirection and sleight-of-hand on the part of the press, media, and senior officials in the Legislature and State Administration is tragically-comic.
In attempting to obscure the very real and substantive problems with SB-1067 and its subsequent Special Session Draft, literally everyone in that press, media and leadership has still failed to address some key and fundamental questions.
Thirteen state and federal constitutional questions were asked in the following article: http://thecitizenslaststand.com/ Many other substantive questions and issues have been raised on the specific content of SB-1067 here: http://www.channelingreality.com/ and http://www.tvoinews.com/category/idaho-senate-bill-1067/
To date, neither set of questions referenced above has been asked or answered satisfactorily or even superficially by the mainstream press, media, legislative leadership or by state executive officials. Virtually none are likely to be addressed in the Special Session in any substantive way.
However, before any final vote is taken on the “new draft” bill for the May 18th special session, all legislators should ask and have answered those and the following questions, at minimum:
1. Why were the INTERSTATE support payments and enforcement orders for 155,000 Idaho families being held hostage and used to extort passage of a bill that would effect a couple hundred INTERNATIONAL support payment and enforcement orders? All of the 97 current international enforcement orders are handled through bi-lateral agreements via the state department. What current emergency was created that requires immediate switch over to an entirely new International Commission and The Hague Treaty passed 7 years ago?
2. Why in 7 years since the passage of The Hague Treaty Convention did it suddenly become necessary to secure Idaho’s coerced passage IN ONE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, with no debate, review or modification of any substantive portion of SB-1067 or its derivative Draft for the Special Session?
3. None of the so-called “amendments” to the new draft bill, offered for the Special Session, contains unequivocal, mandatory language to protect the privacy pf information or the veracity of the process in order to ensure Idaho citizens will not be subjected to fraudulent and abusive foreign orders. The “amendments” are vague statements loaded with ‘weasel words.’ The bill’s supporters even admit that none of the amendments added to the new draft allowed any substantive changes to any portion of the language to be incorporated directly into Idaho statute from the Hague Treaty. So why are Idaho lawmakers thus being demanded to go along with such a ruse?
4. At what point did a couple hundred international enforcement orders become more important than the Constitutions of Idaho and the United States, regardless of the amount of extortion used? If S1067 is constitutional, as it’s supporters insist, then why would it possibly require coercion to pass the House and Senate? Doesn’t anyone else see the obvious, logical fallacy here?
5. If the State legislature cannot amend any substantive portion of S. 1067 or its draft replacement, without losing all federal funding and access to the INTERSTATE electronic support system, then can Idaho citizen’s run a ballot initiative to change the text of the Idaho code without jeopardizing those payments? If not, why not? Can ANY Idaho court subsequently determine to strike or alter any section of the affected Idaho Code WITHOUT jeopardizing those INTERSTATE PAYMENTS? If not, why not? Is it “Idaho Law,” or defacto international law?
6. Using the same form of “cooperative federalism” and “conditional spending” as in this coercive bill procedure, is there ANY law in the future, the federal government could not command the Idaho legislature to pass and implement? How many more times could the Congress force adoption of further International legal conventions and unconstitutional statutes directly into Idaho code?
7. For 225 years no such rationale or justification for the incorporation of similar Treaty language and processes through individual state ratification of international law was ever introduced into the states and even though many of these issues have been around for more than a century. In fact it was specifically understood to be not possible Now in one fell swoop, it’s supposed to be “the way things are done.” Can anyone in the Idaho state legislature name a single prior incidence? If not, where does such rationale and justification suddenly come from?
It’s clear in the press, media, and official communiques thus far that the “fix,” for the “new, improved” version of SB-1067, is in. However, make no mistake. If the new draft version passes out fo the special session and is signed by the Governor, a very new and different Rubicon will have been passed in the nature of our Republic. The sum of the problems facing the state and piling-up continues to rise. Everyone should note by now that NOT ONE major problem that has surfaced in the last decade has been repaired or even ameliorated to any degree. All problems just keep growing and expanding.
Now, another one is about to be added next week and the legislature just says “AYE.”
Bob Neugebauer conducts a fantastic interview with former State Rep. Elizabeth Allen Hodge about the problems with SB 1067 Child Support Legislation!
http://gemstatepatriot.com/blog/podcast-elizabeth-hodge-on-sb-1067/
All links presented clearly in this article are valid reasons for the Idaho Legislature to defeat Senate Bill 1067 in the upcoming special session beginning Monday, May 18, 2015, 8:00 a.m. Idaho Statehouse.
The post SB-1067 Special Session Needs Special Consideration By All citizen’s — not just lawyers and special interests – Jeff Wright appeared first on The Voice of Idaho.