Comments on: Idaho Republicans add call for 17th Amendment repeal, loyalty oath for candidates

By: Governing against the will of the people -NO elections in November! - Christian Forums

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:28:07 +0000

[...] [...]

By: fortboise

fortboise — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:17:35 +0000

Brother Tyler said “We do believe that Idaho citizens should not and/or shall not be taxed for federally-mandated health care.” (Does he really talk that way? “Should not and/or shall not”?)

I assume the topic was the health care insurance reform passed by this current Congress and signed into law by Obama? But is he not aware that all citizens of the U.S. have been paying taxes (and I’m guess will continue to do so) for Medicare? Which is federally mandated health care insurance.

I haven’t heard anyone talk about mandated health care, per se. (As in, “Time to go to the Doctor, Mr. Hurst. I hope there won’t be another tantrum this time!”)

By: Chris D. Sanders

Chris D. Sanders — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:50:32 +0000

I hate to sound like Glen Beck here but this smacks of Nazi Germany. forcing people to go along with party lines in order to control the vote? I cant believe its even being considered.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:12:59 +0000

Way to go Idaho, may our great Republic return to its glory. A senatorial candidate would be required to convince a group of elected policy makers who can EACH have one-on-one time with him/her, rather than just paying marketers to run expensive misleading TV ads in a fake attempt to educate the individual voters, few of whom ever personally meet let alone speak at length with the candidate. Repeal the 17th!

By: David E. Gabert

David E. Gabert — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:18:01 +0000

What’s the difference?

Idaho does not properly enforce the Constitution anyway, it’s the least effective of arguments and often treated with disdain against releasing criminal activity for Constitutional violations; I know, I’m a lawyer and having practiced in both Alaska and Idaho I know it would make a big difference, just look at the total ineptitude this last term for all Idaho Lawmakers and Governor Ought’ter.

So, why would you want those clowns with more Power?

deg

By: Craig Thomas

Craig Thomas — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:37:33 +0000

The People’s interests are represented by the House of Representatives, hence the name. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States. That is why senators were appointed by the State legislatures. It was intended that the voice of the people would be balanced by the wishes of the States so that each must agree before subjecting the People and the States to laws imposed on them by the Federal government. The people were intended to have a say through their individual representatives, that is why they are apportioned according to the number of citizens. The senators were to speak for the States so that anything passed and signed into law would require the approval of both the People and the States. It was meant to be a balance of power so that the people were not subject by unjust laws imposed by the States and the States would not be subject to laws written by the loudest majority. Many of the programs and mandates that are required by the Federal government to by paid for by the States would not exist if this balance of power had not been removed by the 17th Amendment.

By: Day two wraps up at state GOP convention, delegates set to mold platform Saturday « Idaho Reporter

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:47:49 +0000

[...] is a list of ideals for which party members and candidates usually stand. The platform committee approved several changes to the document, including language to require all Republican candidates for public office – local, state, [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 06:14:18 +0000

@Nathan Hobbs
Sorry to tell you but we are a Republic due to the fact that democracy is nothing more than mob rule. If you would like to see democracy in action take a look at the history of New Jersey legislative actions, (they are flat broke and have the highest taxes in the nation). By taking the people out of the equation you allow a state to function under the rule of law. Basically what I’m trying to get at is that if you let the people rule completely you are allowing the people that have nothing in the game to receive all the benefits. I could go on and on listing all the Gov’t programs available in NJ for the “poor” but whats the point you and your kind will fight anything that tries to protect all of us from a total collapse of the greatest country on earth. “Ben Franklin, when the people figure out they can vote themselves money it will be the end of the Republic.” I am from NJ and i can tell you I wish i lived in Idaho

By: Nathan Hobbs

Nathan Hobbs — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:28:03 +0000

The vote belongs with the people. Isn’t that what a democracy is anyways? I used to claim myself a swing voter but with there plans to destroy the 17th Amendment it looks like the GOP gave me a reason to be strictly against them.