BILL: It can be challenged later

When I lived in Pennsylvania I confronted my local senator on the issue of the legislature passing two bills unconstitutionally. In PA, any bill before the legislature needs to be singular in nature and must come to the floor three times before voting on it. The more famous bill was a pay raise for themselves, judges and the rest of the elected folks. The pay raise bill was passed in the dark of night without having ever come to the floor.

When I confronted the senator on the constitutionality of the bill, he responded with “The general attitude of the legislature is not to worry about the constitutionality of any bill, it can be challenged later.” I told the senator that I want my representative(s) to stop any bill from being voted on if it did not fulfill the constitutional requirements — he did say there was a measure they could use to stop it, but didn’t know what it was.

This attitude exists in Congress as evidenced by the Affordable Care Act being challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. Does this attitude exist in the Idaho legislature? All bills need a constitutionality check and halted if but one representative objects and cleared by a vote, thus requiring knowing what is in the bill, and all representatives signing off by their vote indicating they found no objection — before . . . “Later” is too costly.

BOB PERRY

Hayden