Comments on: How About Testimony Under Oath At Legislature?

By: JIMV

JIMV — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:16:05 +0000

I would have no problem with testifying under oath under the penalty of law…if the legislators also had to legislate under oath…ie; tell the plain unvarnished truth about their legislation and motivation.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:30:50 +0000

You are such a radical extremist dreamer, Guardian. Next thing you’ll be wanting a requirement of at least some truth in campaigns and campaign promises. Why, that’s downright un-American.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:23:27 +0000

Bingo! But that’s like saying you can’t fix the tables in Vegas

By: Karen F. Ragland

Karen F. Ragland — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:03:59 +0000

Testimony is a declaration of truth or fact. Unfortunately the legal profession has pulled, pushed, twisted and tied the word “testimony” so much we hardly recognize it. Oh and don’t we have a bevy of attornies in the legislature? Hmmm. Not to mention that lobby groups have their token legal eagles. Just remember the words “truth” and “fact”. Simplicity wins out in the end.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:30:03 +0000

Agree with Grumpy’s opinion.

Our government has become of, by and for the corporations, at the expense of the people. We need our democracy back.

By: Goobs222

Goobs222 — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:28:12 +0000

I saw this done at one point in the past in a local municipality (Eagle) during public hearings. Don’t know if it changed the ultimate outcome of decisions, but it seemed to make those testifying a bit more cautious about what they had to say — and provided a chance for the Council and Mayor to seek clarification of information with that oath as a reminder. Administrations changed over the past 20 years, though, and so did the approach to handing public testimony.

By: dave zarkin

dave zarkin — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:03:22 +0000

We need more watchdogs like you. Keep the red hot torch on the lobbyists behinds.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:22:45 +0000

In my 64 years of pullin air on this earth I have found there are many truths to any issue. I would like to see a chart of who benefits and who loses a +/- assessment of issues before the legislature and the one where the people (“of the people by the people and for the people”) get the nod in laws passed by the legislature.

My favorite whipping post law is Urban Renewal, it rarely benefits the “people” and puts a lot of cash in the hands of folks who are accountable to nobody, yet the Legislature set this messy set of laws up back in the day.

By: Dr Spiegelvogel

Dr Spiegelvogel — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:17:13 +0000

Good idea Dave. The abuse of the term “testimony” is profound.

To balance the scales, the Legislators should also be under oath, thus reducing their fanciful flights of repeating unsubstantiated talking points from the likes of Wayne Hoffman.

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:12:14 +0000

Gee Grumpy, was the “mis-leading” testimony on education any more dire on the superintendent’s side as it was on the Idaho Education Union’s side?? Did anyone really believe the cry ” this will mean we will lose 770 teachers ” that rose from the education union people. Funny, there wasn’t a word spoken about the “top heavy” positions we are suffering with regard to administration. Nor was there discussion about questionable positions that have risen from the “bloated ” budgets of the past few years. Do we really need “Directors of future student development” in MIDDLE school???
As far as the under oath thing, I believe it would cause people to think twice before they start spreading the manure around the legislature. After all, we have landscapers for that. But it seems to be the reason the lawn at the capitol is brown. Over fertilized would be my diagnosis! Just like every year,it will green back up a couple of weeks after the “jamokes” go home.