Just another pol trying to have it both ways.

The legislators took the same oath. Since he agreed, are they all in the same dilemma?
N.55: What seems unjust, and unbelievable, is that one would choose to have children with a partner who would not share in those duties.

The government, whether state or federal, SHOULD NOT be involved with healthcare issues, whether male or female including abortion and LGBTQ issues.

This is government overreach and an introduction to Republican authoritarianism.

If all Idaho state government can do is rubber stamp Texas legislation it is a sorry state of affairs,

To be honest I have never understood how to analyze the exact boundary of what counts as violating the oath to uphold the existing laws in situations involving new legislation.

For instance, a hyper-technical reading of the oath to “uphold the laws of the state of Idaho” would bar a legislature and governor from repealing any existing state law. That’s obviously not what it means!

Nor, surely, does it mean that the governor of Idaho has to put on his SCOTUS hat and make correct predictions of future rulings on constitutional law. The oath shouldn’t require, for instance, that Little accurately predict the fate of Roe when signing state legislation.

Finally, the oath has to mean something slightly different for the governor (an executive) than it does for a senator (a legislator). That’s because the executive is also responsible for enforcing the law whereas the legislature is responsible for making it. “Uphold” has different implications the guy in charge of the ISP than it does for a policy maker.

I think in the end the oath is most important for its symbolism, because although vague in the foregoing details it is still a public commitment to the rule of law. When measuring a violation, what matters most is probably how an official describes their actions rather than what the actions actually are. A statement like, “This is unconstitutional and will be struck down but I’m signing it anyway” would be an oath violation because it is blatant in its disrespect of the law. But a statement like, “I fear this is unconstitutional and unwise and I sign it reluctantly” still demonstrates respect for the rule of law — it probably leaves him safely in the gray area, and on the safe side of the oath.

Jo Jo: ” clearly knows the bill is likely unconstitutional” Then does he also know there’s a chance it may not be likely? If so, where did he “definitely” violate the oath?

We live in the Marketing Society where everyone wants their comfortable lie over and uncomfortable truth. Politicians are liars because most voters demand they be.

IMO, government needs to GTFO of people’s personal lives and decisions. If it doesn’t hurt society then don’t touch it. On that vein, I’d be happy if they legalized all drugs… as long as the druggie had no dependents, were sterilized, and never allowed any public welfare from that point on.

Legalized abortion in the 70’s led to crime dropping by half by the mid 90’s. Not all children are wanted. Steven Levitt proved that in 2001, and Abel Francois again proved it in 2014. The alternative is back alley abortions and girls bleeding to death. Talk to people in their 70s and they likely knew someone that happened to.

It’s obvious to me that states have the right to regulate procedures like abortion under the 10th amendment. This law recently passed in Idaho attempts to do an end run around the unconstitutional legal opinion of Roe from 50 years ago. The Burger court from back then had to fabricate a dubious interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th amendment in order to invalidate state abortion laws, and it should be clear to anyone with an unbiased view of the Constitution that Roe is incorrect and should be overturned.

Simply put, if you wanted to make abortion of any sort legal nationwide you would have to pass a new amendment to the Constitution abridging the rights of states to make laws outside of federal purview. Saying that the Constitution says something that it clearly doesn’t is not sufficient. The false Roe opinion was much easier to obtain at the time than a new amendment requiring affirmation by 3/4 of the states. The Supreme Court overstepped their authority, and that authority needs to be returned to the states where it belongs.

there are alot of experts about our constitution lolllllllll
about the same number, minus 9, of idiots