The Campaign for Liberty mission is "To promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity."
We are in the process of building a network of patriotic Americans, in every county, that are willing to work towards this mission. You are invited to join us as a member of the Campaign for Liberty to help restore our Constitutional Republic!
This is a call to action! We must protect the soul of America-we must return to a love and respect for the basic principles upon which this nation has been established. We must study the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers.
We must move away from unsound economic policies which encourage socialism and its companion, communism. We must as a nation live within our means, balance our budgets, and pay our debts. We must establish sound monetary policies and take needed steps to compete in world markets. We must return to those principles that made America great if we are to return to that greatness.
Will you help us? We have the tools to succeed; all we need is the grassroots labor to use them. Join today to ensure liberty is preserved and/or restored in your county!
You are welcome to contact me if you have any questions about C4L and how you can help.
Anything for liberty,
Alanna Grimm
Interim State Coordinator Idaho Campaign for Liberty
7/29/2010 RE: Ethics Committee hearing, Phil Hart Dear Rep. Jaquet, (An open letter)
I was one of those in attendance for the Phil Hart ethics hearing, and listened intently for the duration of the hearings. My first observation during the hearing was, I actually felt a bit sorry for you. After the reading of the professionally ambiguous "charges" levied by the democrat minority leader, it was fairly obvious you were the one who had to defend these baseless accusations. The leader put you in a bad spot, and I hope you will let him know; for your own sake.
Although this hearing should have never taken place, the facts came out and the charges against Rep. Hart were soundly put down on all accounts; that was probably a good thing overall. However, the reason I write to you today is in regards to the tack you took once the facts and evidence made your position, a loser. I was shocked to hear that you were willing to vote to reprimand Mr. Hart, not based upon fact, but based upon "public perception." As a side note Rep. Jaquet, you did not even provide a reference or supporting evidence to substantiate a negative public perception, so at best it is implied public perception; a weak case indeed. Furthermore, public perception may or may not be based upon facts, and most likely will be corrupted by prejudices. More often than not "perception" is formed by little snippets from the media. If implied perception be the essence of justice should we not just skip the legislature and the courts and just let those who generate perceptions (the owners of the newspapers, websites and TV stations), rule in all affairs? The point of this hearing was not to imply perception, or deliver an informal referendum from your constituents, but seek the truth and marry it up to the law; that is justice.
I was also troubled to hear the other two members of the democrat party on the panel parrot your sentiment (Rep. George Sayler Dist. 4 and William Killen Dist. 17). Rep Sayler even flatly stated, "Perception is reality." Wow! Perhaps this is a "teachable moment" for the public. Perhaps the difference between the (D) and the (R) are manifest in this principal. Does a democrat believe that public perception should rule as law even if it is unjust? I know the essence of republicanism is the exact opposite. Its credo is one of written law, above any one man or group of men; one which holds in check the tyrant and the lynch mob alike.
Finally, I find your preference to perception over truth, inconsistent with a member of an ethics committee. I find no place for feelings or implied perceptions, in such a privileged position; the truth is all that matters. Had you your way, a great injustice would have taken place today to one of Idaho's brightest sons. In light of that I would ask you resign your position on the committee.
Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled againstIdaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)
Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from "any civil process" while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.
Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.
Senators and representatives in all cases...shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof...
There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase "any civil process." An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart's allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, "any civil process."
The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity
Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.
As stated by the United States Supreme Court:
The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: "That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament." 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)... Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).
The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people's voice was protected and uninhibited:
The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. "In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence." Id. at 373.
The court continued in summary "Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial... [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.
This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.
In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House's office received a subpoena for one of the speaker's administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist's tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be "subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature...." The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.
"...the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public's right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote." [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).
In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same "any civil process" language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:
"This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs." Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).
In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator's paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. "It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature." Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.
In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.
The use of the words "subject to" means that the member is not "liable to" the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties...."
Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).
In California the language in that state constitution reads "A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session." The California Court of Appeals said:
In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator's personal affairs. ...such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session." Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).
And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.
These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of "any civil process" should be granted during the constitutional described time periods... When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right... Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).
This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:
In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. "Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators." Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 8.
Conclusion
Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart's side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon[i] and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.[ii]
For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of "income,"[iii] to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions[iv] and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session...is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama's request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?
Not only are Rep. Hart's accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place...to prevent political persecution.
Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.
[iv] It has been reported in the press that the IRS's denial of 100% of Rep. Hart's business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart's refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.
Because of the barrage of press reports claiming Phil Hart has somehow abused the legislative privilege or should not serve on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, I wanted to make some further comments on the situation.
In relating to the most recent case, on September 30, 2009 the Idaho State Tax Commission made a decision to deny Phil Hart's appeal of its tax assessment. This included blindly following the IRS's arbitrary and blatantly malicious decision to deny ALL $300,000 in business deductions. This was retribution because of a book Phil wrote critical of the income tax.
Now put yourself in Phil's shoes. Would you not use every means at your disposal to exercise every one of your due process rights to fight such a blatantly unfair and illegal determination of the tax commission? Well, that is what Phil is trying to do.
On October 2, Mr. Hart received this determination by certified mail which started a 91 day clock for an appeal. Article III, Section 7 of the Idaho state constitution states:
"Privilege from arrest. Senators and representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof; nor shall a member, for words uttered in debate in either house, be questioned in any other place."
The 10 days prior to the legislative session started on December 31, which was just within the 91 day window. Mr. Hart informed the Tax Commission in a letter on day 85 that the 91day period ended within the time set forth in Article III, Section 7 and that he would be submitting the notice of appeal right after the session, which he did. The Tax Commission was seeking to confiscate $53,000 of Phil Hart's assets due to the unlawful and unjustified elimination of his legitimate business deductions -- which would qualify as a "civil process" of law. The Idaho constitution is clear that the legislative privilege extends to "any" civil process. So the Idaho State Tax Commission process should have been immediately halted and tolled until the end of the session.
The idea that this is not civil process since the tax payer is bringing the action as the Tax Commission argues is absurd. The action the tax payer is bringing is part and parcel of the appeal process as allowed by law (63-3049, Idaho Code). You cannot divorce the appeal from the original course of action since it is a valid defense in preservation of the taxpayer's property under due process of law (or what at least passes for due process in Idaho).
Now there have been many out there who have claimed that Phil Hart "abused" his legislative privilege. This claim still boggles my mind. The legislative privilege was created to protect the People of Idaho by preventing distractions to their legislators during session. Remember during the session, the legislators are away from home and must do much of their work without even the benefit of the legislative aids that the state of Washington provides to their representatives.
Phil Hart in particular is a very hard worker fighting to protect the freedoms of Idahoans. Sure, Phil Hart could have acted like Barack Obama (who largely neglected his senatorial duties of his first term starting his presidential campaign almost immediately after his inaugural term) and been absent from a lot of votes, submitting little novel legislation, and failing to read the bills being distracted with putting together his defense. However, this would have left the people of Idaho with little effective representation during the session. Remember Phil Hart was not trying to forgo the process; he was only postponing it so he could focus on his duties as a legislator. If he had done otherwise, he would have done a great disservice to his constituents.
Washington has a similar provision in its constitution with nearly identical language in Article II, Section 16: "PRIVILEGES FROM ARREST. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session."
A similar issue of civil process in the state of Washington came up in State v. Craig (82 Wn.3d 777) which affirmed that the matter of legislative immunity was meant to protect the public from a legislator being distracted and as such this provision should be BROADLY construed:
"In Auditor General v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 234 Mich. 540, 542, 208 N.W. 696 (1926), the court noted: The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the State could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.
These similar constitutional provisions convince us the immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of "any civil process" should be granted during the constitutionally described time periods."
So courts have agreed with this interpretation. I think the interesting question is why the IRS and the state tax commission continue to time motions to coincide with his time in the legislature (at least four times I believe). Are they trying to take advantage of the fact that he is distracted by doing the people's work to get their actions rubber stamped? Or is it an intimidation tactic to get him to toe the line with the status quo while in session? Come on, an IRS agent should know better than to attempt to serve process on a sitting legislator in session (which happened on a prior occasion).
The other matter here is that it has been suggested that Phil Hart should not be qualified to sit on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee because of a conflict of interest. I would beg to differ! I imagine thousands of Idahoans have received the same treatment Hart has with not a word or press or an ounce of concern from their representatives. Now they have a voice on the committee; but, if Phil is removed they do not.
This really brings up is the issue of due process. There was no jury process here. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats, who probably did not like Phil Hart to begin with (remember he proposed a bill to do away with the state income tax last year) got to arbitrarily decide not to count his deductions. Without a jury trial, Phil was then told he would have to pay 20% up front, BEFORE he could get an appeal. Does this sound like due process of law? Do you realize that the state can arbitrarily assess an outrageous amount? Then if you cannot afford a fifth of it to put up on an appeal, it automatically gets entered finally as a judgment without recourse? What recourse does a taxpayer have in this situation? -- NONE! It is anathema to American legal jurisprudence and without Phil Hart on that committee, who has been railroaded in this same manner, these citizens will not have a voice.
It is not Hart that should be investigated. We should be investigating the process that allows someone to be railroaded because he exercised his first amendment rights by authoring a scholarly work which runs counter to the paradigm the state wants the people to blindly accept. If this can happen to a sitting legislator, this can happen to anyone who criticizes those in power.
What is going on? The messiah of healthcare and the oracle of the environment is committing the blunder of all blunders with this BP Oil Disaster. And what are we asking him to do? Turn water into wine, no simple to turn water into water. Though it sounds simple, it is apparently a pay grade or two beyond the mystical abilities of his highness. Here is the rub, there is absolutely no way, no argument that Barack or any of his devout followers can ever again claim he is an environmentalist. For a true believer, would be on the front shores using their own personal force and fortune to clean up this mess, yet our man in the white house is golfing and calling on socialites, yes, he refuses to get his sacred feet wet.
And where are his disciplies? Van Jones former green czar (short for Ceaser) is silent Al Gore, professed high priest of the environment is also silent. And why? Because they are deeply conflicted, do we support the fallen prophet or the environment? Make no mistake, their actions or lack of action indicate their true intent.
The BP oil disaster is not a political issue for this fallen prophet; it is a devastating national economic and security issue. These are the times that try men's souls and when every citizen and every government, needs to act to their best of their abilities, regardless of whether an unconstitutional body like the EPA allows it. Surely this "truism holds, " if you want to get something done its better to ask for forgiveness than permission." Nothing could be truer now and here is my solution.
The Solution
So what of solutions, I will give you mine. Remember the original 1962 TV series the Beverly Hillbillies whose family who struck black gold and moved to Beverly Hills. There is the solution, there are millions of gallons of gas in the gulf and I would assume that even now there are pirates now out there trying to get it and turn it into profits. If I were the Governor of Louisiana, I would declare ownership of all the gulf gas to every displaced fisherman and tradesman and tell them to "Go get it!" And if Gov. Bobby Jindal is to cowardly to give the go, then our founders already have via the "inalienable rights" doctrine. Yes, you have a God given right, no duty, to pursue life, liberty and happiness. You need no authority other than that which has already been granted by the Almighty.
Those brave patriots that pursue this course will at minimum put pressure on BP to fix the problem and provide an opportunity to demonstrate real American heroism and innovation. Who knows with the drive of capitalism a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand American Patriots will go to the fronts lines to farm and fish oil, we can solve this problem. And nothing illustrates Adam Smith's "invisible hand " of the market where the forces of self interest and competition come together to benefit their fellow man more than this.
More to come...
Poll: Should we declare the gulf oil for any American who can get it?
Were you not proud of how well America did during the 2010 Winter Olympics? I sure was. The U.S. amassed 37 medals, a new best and seven more than Germany's 30 and 11 more than Canada's 26. But wait, the victory was not equal of the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" because the mighty USSR no longer exists.
The USSR, also known as "Russia," existed from 1922 to 1991 and at the end consisted of 15 states which now are the following countries: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. No wonder they were so tough to beat, they had a much larger population to draw talent from. But this is not all, theUSSR's influence directed the affairs of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Yugoslavia and many more. What happened to the USSR? Was it war? No! It was a financial collapse that caused the regions of the USSR to divorce one from another. More specifically, "Kenneth S. Deffeyes argued in ‘Beyond Oil' that the Reagan administration encouraged Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil to the point where the Soviets could not make a profit from selling their oil, so that the USSR's hard currency reserves became depleted." The USSR's financial state was weak and with a tweak here and a tweak there, the house of cards fell. We learn a few lessons from this. Like many marriages, finances can and will destroy a country and other countries can apply leverage over another.
The secession talks have been on the news and Internet for many months now and I agree secession is a horrific thought, but to say it could never happen is foolish. Like the USSR, keeping the United States united requires more than desire. It requires good fiscal and social policy. Want another example? Yugoslavia is now six countries: Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. And what of Iraq? Without U.S. intervention, some speculate that it could divide into three to five smaller countries. In these last two examples, the division is a combination of ethnic and tribal.
So where does America fit in this scenario? Consider this, our country's total debt plus future liabilities is nearly $164 trillion-approximately $531,000 for every man, woman and child. I think sometimes we forget what a trillion is. It is an unfathomable number of one million times one million. If you were to stack one trillion's worth of $100 bills it would stand nearly 680 miles high or the highway distance from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles or it would take a line of nearly 1.8 million people shoulder to shoulder each receiving $555,000. Truly this is a number we cannot get our minds around and because we can't we excuse it as fiction.
If we remove the future liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs, we are left with nearly $56 trillion in debt or approximately $181,000 for every man, woman and child. There is absolutely no way possible for this debt to be paid and they do not even consider the financial impact of the new healthcare BILL (emphasis on BILL). So what will happen when the debt collectors from China and elsewhere come? Will they be nice? Will they demand assets like national parks and natural gas reserves as payment? Will they demand our children and children's children pay the debt in full? Or will we run the course of so many before us and divorce into smaller economic units? And if we do, is Southeast Idaho self sufficient enough to stand? I don't know but I do know that we need to prepare for this highly probable outcome. More to come.
Carl Stoddard of Pocatello works in corporate finance. He graduated from Idaho State University with a degree in accounting and earned an MBA from Arizona State University.
1115 Albany Street Caldwell, ID, 83605 208-454-5518
310 Main Street Lewiston, ID, 83501 208-743-1388 208-743-0247
33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID, 83642 208-888-3188 208-888-0894
Dr. Mike Simpson ID-2nd (R)
2312 RHOB Washington, DC 20515-1202 DC Phone: 202-225-5531 DC Fax: 202-225-8216 [Website] [Contact]
410 Memorial Drive Suite 203 Idaho Falls, ID, 83402 208-523-6701 208-523-2384
802 West Bannock Suite 600 Boise, ID, 83702-5820 208-334-1953 208-334-9533
275 South 5th Avenue #275 Pocatello, ID, 83201-5730 208-233-2222 208-233-2095
1341 Fillmore Street #202 Twin Falls, ID, 83301 208-734-7219 208-734-7244
Voted against HR 1: ["The Scamulus Package"] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Voted for HR 1388: ["Obama's Camps"] Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency Act [More info]
Voted for HR 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [More info]
Voted against HR 2346: 2009 $106B War Supplemental [More info]
Voted against HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [More info]
Voted for H.R. 3435: Another $2 billion for clunkers [More info]
Voted against HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
Voted against HR 2647: Imperialism Authorization Act of 2010 / Hate Crimes Creation Act [More info]
Voted for co-sponsoring HR 2194: Expanding Economic War with Iran [More info]
Voted against HR 2847: Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes [More info]
Voted for HR 4061: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 [More info]
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
