Comments on: Citizen Rights In Jeopardy

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:46:28 +0000

Speaking of agendas, JIMV, you seem to have one. You make sweeping generalizations regarding the judiciary like they are the enemy, not public servants. I suspect your animosity is borne from ignorance, not being too familiar with judges or their jobs. Its the kind of lack of informed reasoning I usually hear from talk radio.

As Dave has patiently pointed out, it was four justices on the Idaho Supreme Court that collectively decided that the cited provision of the Constitution means what it says and that the people need to be consulted on these types of expenditures. And it took a concerned citizen like Dave to carry the ball, even when no attorney would take his case, and it was a thoughtful judge who agreed with him. Most judges are responsible practioners in the law who are very mindful of their place in governement and their responsibility to its citizens. So your axe to grind against the judiciary seems to need a different subject. They did thier jobs quite responsibly without a patent agenda.

By: dog

dog — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:41:54 +0000

Please, please call or email your legislators to stop this abrogation of democracy. This is their little trick to get the new Boise Convention Center (Centre?) built. They can do an end run around the voters. No wonder the deciders are so bent on spreading democracy around the world. It’s so easy to corrupt.

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:24:52 +0000

Property values are more affected by supply and demand. Decrease supply, increase demand.
It is a citizen’s RESPONSIBILITY to dictate what level of indebtedness the society shall incur. If our elected officials can show a true need for long term indebtedness and present it to the society well, it should be incurred. If they don’t truly show the need, or if they do a poor job of presentation to the society, it should be turned down. Either way, the citizens MUST exhibit control by their involvement. To have 20% of the electorate control the direction is not acceptable.

By: Citizens of Idaho

Citizens of Idaho — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:01:03 +0000

eric – I agree that it is our right to amend but in this case it will cost you (and everyone else in Idaho – dearly.

By: JJ

JJ — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:12:41 +0000

While many projects might not impact property taxes there are two scenarios where it will. 1) constant development has the impact of increase property values (most cases) and therefore property taxes as well. Increased property value is only a beenfit when sold, until then it is a painful liability. 2) Much government debt is secured by a general obligation, meaning should the government default on the debt, all tax revenue is considered on the table to meet the obligations.

By: eric

eric — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:45:07 +0000

“It is critical that all who read this blog contact their legislators and tell them that you oppose ANY amendment to OUR constitution.”

Citizens, I can’t agree. The ability to amend is what makes our constitution great.

EDITOR NOTE–The will of the people should prevail. If the people wish to ask for an amendment that is fine. Currently, a host of lobbyists all funded by our tax dollars are working to deprive us of our constitutional right to approve long term debt, plain and simple.

The power of government to use OUR resources against us is frightening and must be stopped.

By: JIMV

JIMV — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:02:59 +0000

That is my point, judges are to enorce the Constitution and laws as written, not as fixed by the judge for an agenda.

As Jefferson noted, the judges are divorced from the people.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:45:37 +0000

Not sure it much matters what we do, since our judges apparently pay no attention to the constitution.
Look at any of the “ORDINARY and NECESSARY expenses” they have approved by confirmation — not one of them is “ordinary” (or they would have been covered in the normal budgeting process), and every one of them is debatable about whether it’s “necessary.”
Seems any city or county can go to court and say, we want to spend a bunch of money for something that’s out of the ordinary and may not be necessary, so let’s call it ordinary and necessary, and the judges say, duh, OK!

Every judge who approves these things without at least a detailed investigation including citizen polls, citizen testimony etc. should be booted out for malfeasance.

EDITOR NOTE– Judge Cheri Copsey made the point that judges had a responsibility to look at financial as well as the other merits of any project in a decision she rendered against Boise City’s attempt to go around the voters. Gordon, your message is a good one since a single judge is given the power of 2/3 of the voters under judicial confirmation.

By: Mr. Logic

Mr. Logic — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:41:10 +0000

JINV, try this link for the decision.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:XUfLGj2tN-kJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/sc/1064/boise.pdf+idaho+supreme+court+david+frazier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

It appears to this logical thinker that cities and counties need to hold elections for citizen approval of debt in excess of one year’s revenues. They have refused to do it, have violated the law and now they want to change the law.

Seems the G-man has them so far. Bad side is the politicos are spending lots of OUR $$$ fighting him so we won’t have a voice.

By: JIMV

JIMV — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:34:51 +0000

“EDITOR NOTE–The Idaho supreme has come down strongly in favor of the rights of citizens…local government wants to change the constitution to suit the desires of the politicos.”

I obviously do not understand this issue. I was of the impression the legislature was tinkering here because a court had advised that tinkering was fine.

Does anyone have a link to the Frazier decision?

I am not sure I understand the issue from the posts so far.