Shepherd proposes joint resolution to regulate judicial powers
BOISE — A joint resolution imploring Congress to impeach judges who “disregard his oath of office” was proposed Monday by Rep. Paul Shepherd, R-Riggins.
It faced a chop shop of amendments by Republicans until it was introduced into the legislature by party-line vote.
“I happened to wake up in the middle of the night, and I turned on the TV and I saw the re-run of the Sunday Wallace TV program, and he had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama interviewing him,” Shepherd said. “The topic of that discussion is pretty much what I’m saying. We have serious problems, the courts just do their own interpretation, they make law, they change law and that is totally against the oath (of) office.”
Shepherd said the United States judiciary branch should “rule on compliance of the original intent of the constitution,” and said any “honest and reasonable person can arrive at original intent.”
Rep. John McCrostie, D-Garden City, opposed the bill on personal grounds and asked if Shepherd could address the constitutional framer’s intention with the three-fifths compromise, a part of the Constitution implemented during the 1787 Constitutional Convention counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for representational purposes.
“All I can say is that’s why I spent a little time saying how important original intent is,” Shepherd said. “They did all that compromise and everything, arrived at the Constitution, so now we don’t have to do that, now we have to figure out original intent honest and sincere.”
Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, suggested a change in the first line of the statement of purpose, which would change “congress man” to “congressmen,” which Shepherd approved.
Following the change, Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, said he was wrestling with the wording of Shepherd’s proposal requesting Congress impeach a judge who made or changed a law, because it was a “broad statement.”
“There are many judicial decisions that have struck down a law as unconstitutional based on what you consider original intent,” Luker said. “I’m certainly not trying to undermine what you’re saying based on original intent.”
Shepherd said judges, by their oath of office, should uphold the Constitution and correct injustices in places where something is not pursuant to the Constitution.
Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, suggested an amendment to eliminate the words, “make or change a law” in page two of the document, which would make the document read, “be it further resolved, that a judge of the U.S. judiciary, who disregards his oath of office to uphold the law, should be impeached by Congress.”
Shepherd approved the change.
Luker suggested amending the same statement by changing the word “law” to “constitution,” but Shepherd rejected the change, calling it “redundant.” When Crane later proposed the same amendment during his move to introduce the bill by vote, Shepherd approved the change.
McCrostie followed up by asking if Shepherd would agree a law should not be upheld if it violates the U.S. Constitution.
“It can be proved, if you look into it, that the state is the highest level of government and the Constitution and the Supreme Court, even though we call them federal, it’s their oath of office to uphold the state constitution and the federal Constitution,” Shepherd said.
Shepherd said marriage and health care should be reserved for the “sovereign states.”
Rep. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, voted against the measure.
“I do believe that our job as representatives is to make law, the executive branch carries it out and the judicial branch interprets it,” Wintrow said. “I have to trust those checks and balances.”
George Wood Jr. can be reached at [email protected]