PULL QUOTE: Rule 2026-06 was perhaps the most interesting, as it adds nonattendance to the list of ways a precinct committeeman can be removed from office. Missing four consecutive county committee meetings without an excuse will now cause the seat to be vacated.
I'm glad this has been addressed and absolutely agree with this rule.
(I think missing 4 meetings WITHOUT AN EXCUSE is too many)
Re: “Critics contend that such attendance rules are not lawful, as Idaho Code defines the position of precinct committeeman but does not provide for removal by the body.”
This highlights the two approaches to Law. The Benthamites want everything you’re allowed to do to be spelled out in law, and if it’s not spelled out in law, then you don’t get to do it. The freedom fighters argue the opposite: that if the law does not speak to it, then you are free to do it.
Idaho law is more like the latter, which is why a judge would uphold it a legal challenge.
Re: “Resolution 2026-09, which called for legislation to prohibit foreign entities from owning certain types of property in Idaho. He sought to add a line exempting Indian tribes from the prohibition. The amendment was accepted, and the resolution was adopted.”
This resolution amendment exempting Indian tribes is due to a misunderstanding. There’s a difference between what the Law actually is, and the way that Indians market what they think the law should be from their perspective.
In the United States, under law, all Indians are US citizens, which means they cannot be foreign entities. You can’t have a group US citizens and then have their“tribe“ be a foreign entity.
The marketing scam is that Indians are “independent nations from time immemorial,” but tribal independence, seen in the U.S. Constitution in the commerce clause, has been completely supplanted by congressional control. All Indian nations are creatures of the US Congress today. Indian tribes are no longer a foreign entity.
There are many ways to illustrate this legal fact, but it looks like the IDGOP bought the marketing from the Indians instead of the reality of U.S. law.
PULL QUOTE: Rule 2026-06 was perhaps the most interesting, as it adds nonattendance to the list of ways a precinct committeeman can be removed from office. Missing four consecutive county committee meetings without an excuse will now cause the seat to be vacated.
I'm glad this has been addressed and absolutely agree with this rule.
(I think missing 4 meetings WITHOUT AN EXCUSE is too many)
Re: “Critics contend that such attendance rules are not lawful, as Idaho Code defines the position of precinct committeeman but does not provide for removal by the body.”
This highlights the two approaches to Law. The Benthamites want everything you’re allowed to do to be spelled out in law, and if it’s not spelled out in law, then you don’t get to do it. The freedom fighters argue the opposite: that if the law does not speak to it, then you are free to do it.
Idaho law is more like the latter, which is why a judge would uphold it a legal challenge.
Re: “Resolution 2026-09, which called for legislation to prohibit foreign entities from owning certain types of property in Idaho. He sought to add a line exempting Indian tribes from the prohibition. The amendment was accepted, and the resolution was adopted.”
This resolution amendment exempting Indian tribes is due to a misunderstanding. There’s a difference between what the Law actually is, and the way that Indians market what they think the law should be from their perspective.
In the United States, under law, all Indians are US citizens, which means they cannot be foreign entities. You can’t have a group US citizens and then have their“tribe“ be a foreign entity.
The marketing scam is that Indians are “independent nations from time immemorial,” but tribal independence, seen in the U.S. Constitution in the commerce clause, has been completely supplanted by congressional control. All Indian nations are creatures of the US Congress today. Indian tribes are no longer a foreign entity.
There are many ways to illustrate this legal fact, but it looks like the IDGOP bought the marketing from the Indians instead of the reality of U.S. law.