~ Legislative News Update ~
Senator Tim Corder
Boise and Elmore Counties -
District 22
208-332-1331
www.senatortimcorder.com
Closing Thoughts
The 18th century philosopher Montesquieu had great
influence on our founding fathers; as you may observe from the commentaries
below. His influence is reflected in the
Federalist Papers as well as our constitution and form of government. Consider:
Democracies can
be corrupted in two ways: by what Montesquieu calls "the spirit of
inequality" and "the spirit of extreme equality" (SL 8.2). The
spirit of inequality arises when citizens no longer identify their interests
with the interests of their country, and therefore seek both to advance their
own private interests at the expense of their fellow citizens, and to acquire
political power over them. The spirit of extreme equality arises when the
people are no longer content to be equal as citizens, but want to be equal in
every respect. In a functioning democracy, the people choose magistrates to
exercise executive power, and they respect and obey the magistrates they have
chosen. If those magistrates forfeit their respect, they replace them. When the
spirit of extreme equality takes root, however, the citizens neither respect
nor obey any magistrate. They "want to manage everything themselves, to
debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the
judges" (SL 8.2). Eventually the government will cease to function, the
last remnants of virtue will disappear, and democracy will be replaced by
despotism.
If it is to
provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have
certain features. First, since "constant experience shows us that every
man invested with power is apt to abuse it ... it is necessary from the very
nature of things that power should be a check to power" (SL 11.4). This is
achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers
of government. If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each
can check the others if they try to abuse their powers. But if one person or
body holds several or all of these powers, then nothing prevents that person or
body from acting tyrannically; and the people will have no confidence in their
own security.
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want: if we have the
freedom to harm others, for instance, others will also have the freedom to harm
us, and we will have no confidence in our own safety. Liberty involves living
under laws that protect us from harm while leaving us free to do as much as
possible, and that enable us to feel the greatest possible confidence that if
we obey those laws, the power of the state will not be directed against us.
So there really is nothing new
under the sun. The same perversions to
peace and abstractions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist
today with new faces. I took my own
counsel and re-read Federalist nos. 9 and 10. What brilliant and exquisite postulations.
I observe: factionalism serves the
union and citizens with the same alacrity with which it obfuscates.
During this time of each
legislative year I mourn for what we have yet again failed to do for the people. I mourn the loss of and the abusiveness of
government of the people. It is painful
for me to watch despotism win when I and others have paid so dearly to prevent
that very thing. I worry when those who
have been called to be servants, serve only their arrogance. I worry, when the extreme factions, in the
name of liberty, proclaim themselves the defenders of such liberty by silencing
and ignoring the voices of the governed.
There clearly are outside threats
to our personal freedom and union, as there have always been. There clearly are threats to our personal
freedom and union from within our country as well. To repeat: factionalism serves the union and
citizens with the same alacrity with which it obfuscates. Free speech and the free and open flow of
ideas should never be feared or prevented – especially and most certainly not
under the guise of liberty.
James Madison in Federalist no.10
offers this continuing truth: “Complaints
are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally
the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty,
that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in
the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not
according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the
superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
Madison closes Federalist no.10
with these words: “In the extent and
proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the
diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and
pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the
spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”
Thank you for the remarkable and
extraordinary privilege of serving our republic through you in the Idaho
Senate.
Tim Corder, 3/26/10
Wrap-up 2010
Five of my bills died without
hearing in House committees. S1317
updated the current animal cruelty statute and made the Department of
Agriculture more narrowly focused by freeing resources, in the Department of
Agriculture, now expended on companion animals. S1331 established a board to evaluate,
defend, and establish standards for the care of production animals. S1411 established regulations for poultry
animal feeding operations and moved swine regulation from the Department of
Environmental Quality to the Department of Agriculture. Idaho has absolutely no regulations on the
books and no ability to establish a statewide template for poultry. Idaho, in
the last year, has become the home for four million poultry with another ten
million potential over the next year.
Counties may establish ordinances but the mistakes of the past, with
regard to dairies, are likely to be repeated. S1336 and S1337 provided
statewide conformity for securing loads on all vehicles and minimum standards
for vehicle safety. All of these bills
were the result of consensus and benefited agriculture today as well as provide
protections for the future. The latter
two had exemptions for agriculture for loading vehicles and from all but the
most minimal safety standards.
All of those bills were more than
a year in the making and passed the Senate with huge margins. S1317 was a 34 to 1 affirmative vote. Yet; they were viewed as a threat to
agriculture. Blindness can be
infectious. I accept loss at the
conclusion of appropriate debate. I will
need Katie’s first grade class to help me recover from this one. First graders make sense.
Not
Yours To Give - We The American People Have The Say
(from El-Wyhee Hi-Lites,
September 2009)
The American people are quite
upset with the way our government has been handling the state of affairs of our
city, county, state, and country.
We have entrusted our
legislators to represent us and to keep our country safe and secure. Now our
country is in a financial crisis with people losing their homes, jobs and most
importantly, a sense of overall security.
Too many of our elected
officials are not doing what they were voted in office to do, to represent the
American citizens who put them in office.
Recently, I received an
email with an attached article of a
I was quite taken by the
article and did a little research on it. The article was titled “Not Yours To Give” and the
The article was originally
published in “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,” by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
I have obtained permission
to reprint this article and I do so in the hopes of driving forth two lessons;
one to the American voters who need to hold their representatives accountable
for their actions or lack of, and the other to those representatives who were
entrusted to represent the American people.
Not Yours To Give
One day in the House of
Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a
widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been
made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when
Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker--I have as
much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the
sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but
we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the
living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will
not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate
this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have
the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please
in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a
dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the
ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long
after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I
have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
“Every man in this House
knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate
this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to
appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give
as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I
cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if
every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill
asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody
replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously,
as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it
received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a
friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was
one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of
Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in
“The next summer, when it
began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout
around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the
election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one
day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other,
I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so
that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man.
He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I
am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---‘
“Yes I know you; you are
Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time
you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better
not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”
“This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
“ ’Well,
Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see
how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either
you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting
in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the
man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did
not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly
to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it
only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from
mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said,
that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I
cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held
sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power
and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
“ ‘I
admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I
do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional
question.’
“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the
backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from
“ ‘Well,
my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody
will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the
insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children,
particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had
been there, you would have done just as I did.’
“ ‘It
is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the
first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough
for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power
of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that
can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by
a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be,
and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is
worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for
there is not a man in the
“ ‘So
you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital
point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress
once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there
is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I
have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except
as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for
you.’
“I tell you I felt
streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking,
he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I
could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully
convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I
said to him:
“ ‘Well,
my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough
to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I
had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers
of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I
ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put
my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will
forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional
law I wish I may be shot.’
“He laughingly replied;
‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again
upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong.
Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you
go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are
satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to
keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that
way.’
“ ‘If I don’t’, said I, ‘I
wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I
will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a
gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I
will pay for it.’
“ ‘No,
Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of
provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have
none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a
day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday
week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a
very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“ ‘Well,
I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye.
I must know your name.’
“ ‘My
name is Bunce.’
“ ‘Not
Horatio Bunce?’
“ ‘Yes.’
“ ‘Well,
Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you
have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very
proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
“It was one of the
luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public,
but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible
integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and
benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the
oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond
the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I
had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have
had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain; no man could
now stand up in that district under such a vote.
“At the appointed time I
was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to
every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an
interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested
before.
“Though I was considerably
fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should
have gone early to bed, I kept him up until
“I have known and seen
much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence
and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times
every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a
Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ
would take the world by storm.
“But to
return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my
surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known
before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well
acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
“In due time notice was
given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been
erected. I opened my speech by saying:
“
‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new
man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or
both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the
ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to
render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error
than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to
myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your
consideration only.’”
“I went on to tell them
about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was
satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“ ‘And
now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the
speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of
the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce,
convinced me of my error.
“ ‘It
is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied
with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand
and said:
“
‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the
request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all
that he has promised you today.’
“He went down, and there
went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called
forth before.’
“I am not much given to
tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down
my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by
such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me
than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or
ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’
“Now, sir,” concluded
Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.
“There is one thing now to
which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s
pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of
spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when
they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful
speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the
deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and
worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.
Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but
trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for
which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity,
and justice to obtain it.”
..............................
Source: Not Yours To Give - Col. David
Crockett, US Representative from