The Senate Resources and Environment Committee will be holding a hearing today at 2:00 pm on H343 in room WW02 of the Capitol building. There will likely be crowd present so be there early if you want to testify.
This bill, which is likely to pass and be signed by the Governor, demonstrates exactly why Idaho cannot be trusted to manage wolves. Even if the IDFG desires to set management goals for wolves above the minimum of 10-15 breeding pairs or 100-150 wolves, the legislature is showing that it can, and will, override them. This legislation seems to even strike at their own 2002 plan which allows wolves to persist in areas where they are not even causing conflict. This would define conflict in such a way that even their presence on a mountain top far away from anyone is a conflict because it might scare some weakhearted berry picker.
Senate Resources and Environment Committee hearing schedule.
You can watch or listen here: Idaho Legislature Live (Idaho Public Television).
Comments
Question: If this passes and is signed into law, does it void the judicial settlement? Doesn’t the agreement rely on Idaho and Montana following the wolf management plans that were in place at the time of de-listing?
no, this is nonsense. It is state law in direct conflict with federal laws. They lose. This is about making wolf haters feel good. That is all.
It ought to make great political theater though.
I just want this latest gang to go away..tired of the destructive energies and policies. But, Ralph, you and others are correct; the wolves are just a tool in this latest and greatest FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS EVIL INCARNATE philosophical battle. So much of it all is based on myth, lies, half truths, and fear mongering. The truly sad thing is that people in these states respond positively to the lies without making any effort to make their own decisions. Sheep….
This FREEDUM agenda espoused by republicans is already crashing and burning. In Wisc- with all 100 % of precincts reporting incumbent judge Prosser lost by 204 votes- recount is on. 3 months ago this race woudn’t have been questioned. Walkers handpicked successor for his old seat lost by 20 points. He has been forced to reverse the cronyism riddled raise for a campaign contributor’s son. People will only take so much before they fight back. The Repubs are not serious about the Budget when they are trying to force these ideological fights over the ESA, planned parenthood, and EPA funding through these riders. My fear is that wolves will fall through the cracks
William Huard,
You are right that wolves are not an issue at all in this, although some senator who happens to be in the right place in this epic struggle over wealth, power and other values, may decide to protect them. This situation is so unprecedented that predictions are nothing but hunches.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/apr/06/wolf-opponents-tout-wolf-emergency-bill/
Tuesday Poll: Overwhelmingly, Hucks Nation is more concerned about the damage caused by Idaho legislators than that wrought by wolves. 151 of 204 respondents (74.02%) say a legislative emergency should be declared as a result of the poor work done by the 2011 Legislature. 21 of 204 (10.29%) are more worried about wolves. 16 respondents (7.84%) say both legislators and wolves are cause for an emergency declaration. Another 16 (7.84%) aren’t worried by either.
What is scary is that these Sheep keep electing these idiots to office and in their warped mind believe that the rest of the country agrees with them.
Only two dozen people showed up for the rally in support of the legislation but it’s probably more than will show up in opposition.
Still, I think it strengthens the case that the settlement and the delisting language in the US Senate version of the CR should be denied.
Just curious…is there a real danger that pro wolf people would be subject to harm if they did show at these events? Is it an overblown fear? Or is the perception they will be subject to harassment and possible harm enough?
I certainly got the stinkeye from Scott Rockholm when sitting outside in front of the Capitol yesterday. I purposely wore my WWP hat there and he noticed it as he walked by me while he was telling someone on the phone that he thought he had seen Suzanne Stone at the rally. He did a double take.
I guess that people could feel intimidated at these events but I showed up after the speechifying was over. I have attended a few of the events but I don’t usually make my identity known. I attended one event a few years ago in Cascade where Ron Gillett gave his presentation. After it became apparent that I had videotaped it for publication here he gave another speech someplace where, I was told, he said something about how there were going to be a few wolf advocates floating in Payette Lake.
The following was posted on the BBB:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/08/08/wolves-listed-wolves-delisted-the-incompetent-usfws/
******* on August 10th, 2010 5:41 pm
Would you like me to post Marvels and Ertz’s home addresses, both live near Hailey, Ken Cole, Boise, Ralph Maughan, Pocatello.. WWPs main office is in Downtown Hailey Idaho, those offices are upstairs in the E.G. Willis Building, owned by Bruce Willis, the rent is not cheap for that office space..
******* on August 10th, 2010 5:46 pm
I had a private email exchange going with Brian but when the evidence became to insurmountable he stopped answering.. These people are liars, they cannot handle the truth of this world nor the fact that they have been lied to and bought it hook line and sinker..
******* on August 13th, 2010 7:05 pm
I have photoed their homes, vehicles, and them about town.. Some day a very revealing blog may just get posted. But these people do not need any help destroying their own legacy’s, their doing a fine job of it themselves.. It’s only a matter of time.
The problem isn’t isolated to just those of the anti-wolf side though. Recently some whackadoodle was charged with threatening the life of a California Senator if they voted for legislation which would delist wolves. I’ve heard of many other threats made by pro-wolfers too. It’s not acceptable from either side.
Hey Ken,
I walk by the Capital everyday. Let us know next time you are going to be confronting the anti wolfers. I’d love to stop by and meet you and also let Gillett know that what he is doing is ignorant and will lead to the exact opposite of what he purportedly wants…
It’s interesting how the people over on that BBB are more obsessed with what is being said on this blog. They seem to have it in for people here. Lots of name calling and lies and not much substance. Rattle Rider seems a little bit off their rocker. He said he tried posting here. Said he believes in global warming then posted some bible nonsense about how wolf lovers are gonna burn in hell.
rattle rider still hasn’t come to terms that he was tossed from here. He has blog envy and it shows. He constantly talks about this blog and the people who post on it. He’s jealous that he can’t post on here anymore, so what does he do, he bad mouths those who can and that he is jealous of.
McGruff
Rattle Rider is Greg Farber.
Believe me, before wolves became an issue they were bad mouthing environmentalists. Remember the signs that read “This house is supported by timber dollars”? The wolf is just a symbol of their anti-government, everyone’s an outsider, we’re fifth generation Idahoans, feelings. Although the ranchers don’t mind taking those “welfare checks”.
This is such a crock. They tried this last February, remember?
Resolution seeks ‘emergency’ reduction in wolves in the state
Feb. 15, 2010 2:44 p.m.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2010/feb/15/resolution-seeks-emergency-reduction-wolves-state/
Odd but most of us are waiting, hoping to see that wolves are actually conserved, the other side is waiting, hoping for the word to let the butchering begin.
House Bill 343 just got moved to the floor with a “do pass” recommendation on a 7-2 vote from the Senate Resources and Environment Committee.
Kudos to Ken for getting up there after Gillett and Rockholm. I can imagine what pleasant company they must make.
Addendum to Brian’s post
…..over the objection of Senator Elliot Werk (D – Boise), who (after consultation with the ID Attorney General’s office) pointed out a potential state Constitutional separation of powers issue in the text of the bill.
WM,
When a bill with language that is not constitutional is passed on the state level, what happens next? Are all bills that pass put under review automatically for potential issues, or does it have to be challenged in court?
Werk was trying to stall the bill from hitting the floor with just such review — the attempt failed, the bill will need to be challenged in court should it pass into law.
Daniel,
Typically a bill after becoming law would have to be challenged in court on state Constitutional grounds, but this isn’t law yet. It would likely be a matter filed in state court. I am not sure who would take on role of a plaintiff filing of such a suit because the present legislative branch seems to want it and there is not indication Butch won’t sign the bill. You never know.
I won’t pretend to understand the ID legislative process, after a bill comes out of a Senate committee (after being passed by the House) but is not yet acted on by the full Senate. If there is time, of course, it could go back for language change, but I gather the legislative session is coming to an end soon, so unless they stop the clock, will that happen, or will they just pass the thing and take their chances?
{The state constitutionality is, of course, an entirely separate issue from the potential violation of federal law if the governor delcares an “emergency” and then the state does something to lethally control protected wolves. That issue would wind up in federal court because it is what is called a “federal question.” There was interesting point brought up in the hearing by Senator Phil Hart who presented the bill, about the exercise of state police power to declare an “emergency” which might be in conflict with federal law. So, it appears the sponsors have given some thought to that.}
Maybe Ralph or one of the political scientists can tell us what lies ahead for a fix, if there is indeed a separation of powers legal issue.
There has to be an actual case before a court will consider the constitutionality (or anything else about a law). Therefore, after passage and enactment into law, a law has to be exercised in a way that some person or group can claim harm and file a lawsuit.
If nothing happens, or until it happens, there is no judicial remedy.
Ralph, certainly a PR could be sought to prevent the law from being implemented pending a legal decision, if the elements of a PR filing could be met…
PI..sorry..
They are having their horror show in the Idaho Senate now (5PM 4-6-2011).
Next a vote.
Perhaps they will approve a measure to put advertising on wolves to raise money for schools and ranchers, since the House failed to pass the bill to allow school districts to sell bus advertising for much needed revenue. why not – so many wolves, so little money
I often thought that Idaho should have put a wolf’s image on the State quarters issue. Like em or hate em that would have been the most popular quarter of the genre.
They just passed it in the Senate 27-8
http://www.kivitv.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=5730767&h1=Wolf%20Debate%20Rages%20On&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=146167&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=79204202
And the Governor will sighn it.
http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp?S=14399299
Karen Kalistelio spoke to the rabid crowd, declaring that she barely escaped with her life after being cornered by a savage pack of wolves just a few months ago near Coeur d’Alane.
“I had resigned myself to that I was going to be eaten — and to the point where I just turned to praying that it would go fast,” Kalistelio explained, revealing that a neighbor eventually rescued her.
I guess this story has changed a bit with time.
She’s the idiot that is associated with all the visonaries like Rockhead, the WTT outfitters, and other wolf experts right?
What do you expect from someone who is good friends with Rex Rammell? She’s also a member of Idaho for wildlife, an extremist anti-wolf organization who are short on facts.
You’re right Jon it was Rammell. Rockhead, Rammell is there really a difference with these people? Rammell has alot of credibility
What was that line that the dimwit wolf hater Steve Pierce from NM said about wolves- ” there’s no better sound to a wolf than the sound of a baby crying”. It’s too bad Kalistelio escaped shock treatment because she could use a few sessions
Wasn’t her story debunked already?
I wonder if she wore her red hood and cape. story was bullshit then, bullshit with icing today.
It’s water over the damn, but I remember Mr. Rockholm all giddy on a number of sites proclaiming something big was in the air in terms of a human wolf encounter. This encounter was on BBB beforre it hit the news in the area. The whole BBB thread was scripted with a story about wolf behavior from none other than Valerius Geist. When you look at it, the whole story just needed an anti-wolf person to encounter a wolf or two, or three. She was not cornered by a pack of savage wolves, even if you read her”story”.
I think her alarm clock hit and that was what rescued her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights
I think in most Federal vs states rights cases, like it would be over the wolves, Idaho’s soon-to-be-law and their claim of sovereigntry over their wildlife including Federally protected Endangered and Threatened species, like the grey wolf Northern Rockies DPS – the US Attorney General (the Federal govt) brings suit against the state, in this case the State of Idaho. US Attorney and the Justice Dept then files a Petition of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court and skips all the other Federal and state court steps like Federal District and Appeals Courts.
In any case, not just posturing, might be a very expensive and unnecessary legal battle for an obviously unConstitutional law passed by ID’s Senate and House. Maybe we will get lucky and the independently-thinking Idaho Attorney General, Lawrence Wasden, will weigh in and let the governor know he might be about to sign an unConstitutional law.
I wouldn’t count on the clown that is the US Attorney General now to do anything.
The whole federal vs. state issue, the Sagebrush claims..have been litigated and defeated several times. But that doesn’t mean the process won’t be repeated, obviously.
Yeah and these Republican Statehouses aren’t helping their cause with these narrow “crazy” ideologies. From NH with their “neither man nor cow is responsible for global warming” to states like Missouri who are blocking fed funds for unemployment claims. You know we are in trouble when Tim Phillips puts his two cents in. He is the ultimate “Corporate Shill”
Idaho doing their really big government best
http://www.thinkprogress.org
Don’t these legislators have women in their families?
JimT,
I think ID is attempting to characterize the states rights issue as a faceoff between a state’s right to declare an “emergency” to address what they would characterize as a public health and safety issue (along with others that would be subordinate but affect wildlife management), and take state action to respond to it.
They would say, it makes no difference whether there is a federal law protecting the species causing the “public health and safety” issue, and this would be one of those areas where federal law does not trump state powers, which we know are reserved to the states based on the Consititution (there is case law on this, according to Senator Hart who presented the bill in Committee).
This might be an entirely different legal argument than the resource issues we usually see at the heart of the Sagebrush rebellion.
Isn’t it a moot point? The declaration may be a legal act, but as soon as someone shoots a federally-listed species that individual has violated federal law (declaration or not). Please correct me if I am misinterpreting things.
JB,
Just thinking outloud, here, without having researched any of this, and please bear in mind this is not my view that any of this should be done. I am only laying out the argument.
Killing a listed ESA species (wolf in this case, but think griz too, if they stay on the list and the states get pissed about numbers, distribution and human conflicts) would be a violation of federal law. Individuals would likely not have the same legal protections for violating the law in most instances, as a state might pursuant to a state law addressing public safety/health (and coincidentally the wildlife management function).
If it is the state doing the killing under its “emergency” related program (I think the bill refers to the role of the office of species conservation to do the work) they could argue “necessity” to violate the federal law. This may be a successful defense if there is a compelling reason to do so – public health/safety. But, it seems there is an equally compelling reason not to accept such a defense because FWS already has a program in place to deal with problem wolves at specific times and places when problems are identified – we know it as WS/APHIS, and they have been doing it for years, responding to state requests.
Or the state could just say, if your ESA program threatens the health and safety of our citizens, focused state police power law trumps federal law, and we’ll see you in court. I predict this path.
This kind of takes us (you and me) back to our earlier discussions about federal state relations and the belief that for many purposes the states remain individual goverments separate and apart from the association of states under the Constitution which we call the United States, and the powers specifically granted to the federal government by that Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
Certainly over the last two hundred twenty plus years the role for a stronger central government has been demonstrated, as it is apparent states sometimes do not do a very good job on their own. However, the origins of our country and the organic concept of “association of states” united under the Constitution is lost on many people.
“Or the state could just say, if your ESA program threatens the health and safety of our citizens, focused state police power law trumps federal law, and we’ll see you in court. I predict this path.”
WM: Thanks for your thoughts on this. I admit that I find the separation of powers to be a murky topic. I wonder…under the scenario you’ve described above, who ends up in court? That is, can the declaration itself be challenged in federal court, or would one have to wait for someone to kill a wolf? This is not an area of law that I am at all familiar with.
– – –
Months ago I posted that I thought the actions of states were pushing us toward federal protections for wolves (akin to those in place for wild horses and burros). If this declaration stands and the state of Idaho takes actions to reduce populations you can bet that wolf advocates will push hard to fully protect wolves on federal lands, where there is no confusion (at least in the courts) regarding the separation of powers. Idaho’s actions are extremely unfortunate in this regard; they will further erode trust with conservation groups and will be used as Exhibit A. to demonstrate to people from outside that Idaho cannot be trusted to manage wildlife resources.
Though unpopular with many who post here, I have always hoped to see wolves returned to state management under the North American Model. These “protest” actions might ultimately get wolves off the list, but states may pay a hefty price in terms of their ability to manage wolves on federal lands further down the road.
I would think a declaration of an “emergency” with sufficient detail from the governor to command a state department to engage in immediate acts of control that would result in death of individual wolves would be a sufficient ground to seek injunctive relief in federal court to stop that action.
Now, would a state a state go forward anyway if a federal judge were to enjoin or restrain the state from the proposed activity? That would be a good question, and thinking through it, and to discourage such action, a judge might go as far as to entertain prosecution of individual employees of the state who purposefully break the law by actually killing a wolf in violation of an injunction.
So, I think this thing is far from a done deal as far as actually killing wolves as a part of a declared “emergency” under a state program. They will have the right to boast and prance around a bit, if Butch signs the bill, however.
And, it may empower certain individuals to believe they can act on their own under a declaration of “emergency” even though the law does not contemplate self-help. The question then becomes whether the state would participate in investigating and prosecuting such individual actors (I think Butch’s current position is no effort will be spent). The feds will be unlikely to unleash additional resources as in FWS enforcement folks or FBI, to investigate, and Justice lawyers to prosecute. To do so would only add fuel to the fire to seek changes to ESA law, in my view.
Will it result in many dead wolves? I dunno.
i agree with WM. The one thing that trumps the ESA is human health risks and emergencies. So… if the Governor declares an emergency, and human health and safety are at risk, basically ESA is suspended.
Of course we know their claims about the life-threatening tapeworms and baby-snatching wolves are hysterical, if not hilarious and certainly not based on fact. I guess that’s where some group, such as WWP and their lawyers, Advocates For The West, race into Federal Court and ask the District Judge for an Injunction or Cease and Desist, to prevent Idaho from illegally killing wolves, at least until the Federal Courts can sift through the “facts” and discern what is wheat, what is chaff and if the threat to human health and safety is real.
I suspect when faced with the facts and the anti-wolf hysteria, a Federal judge in Idaho might end up issuing such an Order and at the same time, scold the Idaho Legislature and Governor for wasting public money and time and trumping up emergencies where they don’t exist.
This from ESA – Sec 6 (“Cooperation” with States)
(f) CONFLICTS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Any State law or regulation which applies with respect to the importation or exportation of, or interstate or foreign commerce in, endangered species or threatened species is void to the extent that it may effectively (1) permit what is prohibited by this Act or by any regulation which implements this Act, or (2) prohibit what is authorized pursuant to an exemption or permit provided for in this Act or in any regulation which implements this Act. This Act shall not otherwise be construed to void any State law or regulation which is intended to conserve migratory, resident, or introduced fish or wildlife, or to permit or prohibit sale of such fish or wildlife. Any State law or regulation respecting the taking of an endangered species or threatened species may be more restrictive than the exemptions or permits provided for in this Act or in any regulation which implements this Act but not less restrictive than the prohibitions so defined.
This clearly states that Idaho’s law cannot be less restrictive than Federal ESA in regards to Section 9 Take of listed species, such as Northern Rockies DPS of gray wolves or Yellowstone DPS of grizzly bears.
Section 6(g) actually goes through a pretty involved process where the Governors of Idaho & MT could file as Exemption Applicants for exemptions of ESA, like Section 9 take of listed wolves. The process calls for the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the Fed Register, hold hearings, call together the Endangered Species Committee (“god” squad) and make a decision. Certainly not instant, even if Salazar-Obama agree with MT & ID. If issued, the Exemption(s) can be temporary or permanent.
The devil is in the details of ESA and in Sec 6(p) there is actually language where the President of US declares the disaster and suspends ESA – in this case to kill wolves.
(p) EXEMPTIONS IN PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTER AREAS.—In any area which has been declared by the President to be a major disaster area under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the President is authorized to make the determinations required by subsections (g) and (h) of this section for any project for the repair or replacement of a public facility substantially as it existed prior to the disaster under section 405 or 406 of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and which the President determines (1) is necessary to prevent the recurrence of such a natural disaster and to reduce the potential loss of human life, and (2) to involve an emergency situation which does not allow the ordinary procedures of this section to be followed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Committee shall accept the determinations of the President under this subsection.
Hope this helps and doesn’t confuse the situation more than ID Legislature has left us. Of course, if ID & MT filed for Exemptions as Exemption Applicants, all decisions by USDI are actionable in Federal Court – lawsuit and petitions for cease and desist or other injunctive relief.
I hope a lawyer weighs in, since I am not a lawyer… and I don’t even play one on tv
This is the intro section of the Idaho Code section that the legislature wants to add their new law to concerning the wolves…
TITLE 67
STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 58
PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
67-5801.SCOPE AND PURPOSE. The purpose of this act is to provide an orderly, comprehensive plan for the protection of the natural resources of the state and for the suppression of dangers or threats thereto; to provide training for state employees in prevention and suppression of natural resources disasters; and, to authorize the governor to marshall the manpower and resources of state agencies in the event of such a disaster.
link to the proposed idaho wolf law…
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2011/H0343.pdf
There is absolutely no way that this proposed law is going anywhere. It is a clear violation of federal law.
Go to this link, it is a good one on the legality of federal wildlife regulation.
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/09ReportCard/FacultyOverview.pdf
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). Federal Law over State’s 10th amendment challenge.
Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976) the Court stated that
“the complete power that Congress has over public lands necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there.”
We’ll obviously see whether it’s going anyplace since it is sitting on the Governor’s desk waiting to be signed.
There has been a lot of discussion here over the years about Kleppe v New Mexico and I agree that the federal government can regulate wildlife on public lands but they rarely do.
David White,
The cases you cite are instructive for the purpose of defining the scope of federal powers to “conserve” wildlife, and specifically on federal land. However, the ID proposed law addresses the issue from a different perspective, and that is that the ESA “protected” wildlife (an expanding population of wolves) is allegedly creating a health/safety/general welfare problem affecting residents of that state. It seems there is a case to be made that federal land ownership, and the fact that wolves are federally protected, may not be the pivot points for resolving the issue. The state has already identified the basis for declaring an “emergency” in the proposed law, even if they are bogus (adverse effects on health, safety, economics, interference with wildlife management of species clearly within their purview), and thus wish to CONTROL the wildife with the police power.
Kleppe as being a much narrower ruling applying to a very specific instance. I know that won’t go over well with Kleppe believers, but I just do not see a broadening of federal management powers over wildlife in the West. If you want to watch even moderate states come unglued over expanding federal powers, should Kleppe get broadened to include more day to day management over wildife expect lots of changes in federal law to countermand the effects of a such a court decision, and even more aggressive assaults on the ESA by those states which are pretty much neutral for now.
I should also add the federal government has done a piss poor job of managing those wild horses and burros under Kleppe, which out to give you an idea about how well it actually does as a day to day manager of wildlife
I concur with your assessment about the federal government’s (BLM really) job of managing wild horses–though to be fair, the BLM is caught between a rock and a hard place. They could do a fine job if they could use humane lethal management. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Regardless, what alternative do wildlife advocates when faced with people willing to take such actions? The wolf population declined (or at least was stable) in Idaho, and yet the vast majority of the legislature is apparently willing ~1000 wolves confined mostly to federal public lands to declare an emergency? There hasn’t even been a single verified attack, and wolves have killed two people in North America in the past 110 years.
In contrast, take a look at what effect H1N1 had in Idaho:
“In Idaho the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza virus resulted in 831 cases of disease, 389 hospitalizations, and 23 deaths between September 1, 2009 and June 5, 2010. ”
I wonder…if wolves are so scary to Idahoans as to constitute an emergency, h1n1 must have shut the entire state down? Right? 😉
I should not get on the computer so early in the morning. What I meant to say was…
“…and yet the vast majority of the legislature is apparently willing to declare that ~1000 wolves, confined mostly to federal public lands, constitutes an emergency?”
Of course, Govs of MT & ID are banking on the idea that Salazar-Obama Admin won’t send in gangs of FWS Special Agents or the U.S. Army to gain back Federal control of preventing take (includes lethal as well as non-lethal harassment, harm, injury, even changing their behavior like chasing them with helicopters, ATVs and fixed wings) in the case of open season by the State governments on Federally-protected wolves.
My bet is the Federal Courts – and of course, everyone pays for the cases, whether you are for or against wolves — especially when Federal and state governments square off in litigation.
In order to send Army in, the President would have to declare a state of Martial law, which is hardly an option in the case of a listed species…
@In strict dictionary terms, martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of control might vary – a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the courts administered by the military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called “martial law.”@
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html
thanks – Did Lyndon Johnson declare martial law when he sent in U.S. troops into Alabama to protect civil rights marchers? How about when Kennedy sent Federal marshalls into Mississippi to guard James Meredith in 1962 or when he Federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1963 to guarantee desegregation of University of Alabama?
Larry, Federal Marshal’s are a different situation, and the troops sent in were actually National Guard, which comes under a completely different set of rules..Using a Federal authority to use National guard troops comes under a different set of mandates..deploying regular army in the US is a very difficult situation. Now Obama could use the same Federal Authority to mobilize the Idaho state National Guard just as was done during Katrina, but none of these situations in the past have resulted in regular army being deployed on US soil..
Perhaps this explains the mass wolf hysteria in Idaho’s Legislature:
Idaho gets fallout from Japan
Boise Registers Highest Levels in Nation
http://www.mtexpress.com/vu_breaking_story.php?bid=96754
So… it is in the water!
When you give dog more right’s then yourself????? When you put your trust in a unregulated organization (the government)….. When government takes your freedom’s in the name of security…. When people are considered trash…. When animals have more freedom then people….. When you spend money with no regard for the future generation….. THEN YOU’VE LOST YOUR SOUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill in colorado,
“THEN YOU’VE LOST YOUR SOUL”?
This doesn’t make any sense. In addition, it is bad form to use multiple exclamation marks or question marks in web discussions. Capital letters are regarded as shouting.
Learn how to comment properly if you want to participate.
Bill, honey,
Americans sold their collective soul decades ago, personal soul-selling has be widespread since W reared his ugly Medusa-heads (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) and stayed in office long enough to trash the world for wealthy in order to enslave the rest of the world. You obviously don’t get of the house much, do you? Since you obviously don’t read much either, you aren’t getting any points across other than you need a lot of help on a lot of levels. You’re making as much sense – or lack of – than the idiots who have infiltrated our government and sent this whole nation careening into the socio-economic ditch. A point I’m sure you won’t understand either.
These tea partiers haven’t the slightest clue what the role of government is. Just cut, and cut, who cares if it causes more harm than good. People that claim such ideological high ground are idiots
Bill-
With all due respect- your views are not mainstream american views. When you rail about deficits and government intrusion after not saying a peep when Bush was in office makes you look ignorant, racist, or both