Idaho Adoption Forms: Fill & Download for Free

Oregon was originally founded as a ‘white utopia’, with this in Section 35 of the state constitution. It was rendered invalid by the 14th Amendment, but not removed from the state constitution until 1926.No free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor themIn the 1920’s Oregon had the highest percentage of KKK members in any state in the United States, and elected a KKK governor.There are solid, stinking, deep-in-the-woods roots of white supremacy in the Pacific NorthwestThe modern white supremacist groups that emerged out of Oregon-Washington-Idaho have been particularly violent, such as The Order (white supremacist group) - Wikipedia and Aryan Nations - Wikipedia. I don’t think that you can justify calling the numbers of modern white supremacists high in these areas, but the strain of white supremacy that comes out of the Pacific Northwest is particularly virulent and violent.

Because of the Twenty Seventh Amendment.When the Equal Rights Amendment was sent to the states, Congress set March 22, 1979, as the deadline for the ERA’s ratification. It then extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. The extension set off a court fight about whether Congress had the power to retroactively affect a proposed Amendment’s ratification process, especially given that many states had voted to ratify in consideration of the original deadline.A federal court ruled in 1981 that Congress had no such power[1] ; however, the Supreme Court stayed the court’s ruling, and then later in 1982 vacated the ruling altogether because no state attempted to ratify the Amendment in the meantime.Dead, right?Well, at the same time that the ERA was sitting before the states, a few legislatures got around to cleaning out their inboxes and found that they missed a few pages of the original Bill of Rights (which had 12 amendments). So the states all claimed, “Oh, yeah, we were totally going to get around to it,” and spent the next 15 years ratifying what is now the Twenty Seventh Amendment.Now, a lot of people called, “Shenanigans!” over this. While proponents of ratification noted that Congress never set a deadline, others noted that the Supreme Court had already rather explicitly pronounced the Amendment dead for lack of timeliness:[A]s ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people, and is to be effective when had in three-fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which, of course, ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. . . .That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861 -- are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and, in our opinion, it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from Article V is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal.[2]…Except a few years later, the Court decided it actually didn’t want to have any part in this.We think that . . . the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment. . . .Our decision that the Congress has the power under Article V to fix a reasonable limit of time for ratification in proposing an amendment proceeds upon the assumption that the question -- what is a reasonable time -- lies within the congressional province. If it be deemed that such a question is an open one when the limit has not been fixed in advance, we think that it should also be regarded as an open one for the consideration of the Congress when, in the presence of certified ratifications by three-fourths of the States, the time arrives for the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment. The decision by the Congress, in its control of the action of the Secretary of State, of the question whether the amendment had been adopted within a reasonable time would not be subject to review by the courts.[3]So basically, the current state of play is that the Court recognizes that Congress has the authority to set a deadline for an Amendment’s ratification; but Congress also has the authority to say, “Meh, the ratification may not be timely, but it’s still a contemporaneous issue;” and if Congress decides to give an overdue Amendment such a pass, the Court has no role to play in saying otherwise.Additionally, the current law for ratifying Amendments states[4] :Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.And, to recap:the Constitution itself doesn’t say anything about whether Amendments have an expiry date;Congress already set a hell of a precedent by adopting a 200-year-old Amendment that the Supreme Court had already suggested was dead, and;the Court has put the review of Congress’ power to accept or reject an overdue ratification into the realm of “political questions” beyond its power.So the States are still free to ratify (or withdraw their ratification) of the ERA for as long as they want; because if and whenever three-fourths of the states get around to ratifying the Amendment, it will be on Congress’ shoulders to decide whether to accept the Amendment as part of the Constitution or not.Footnotes[1] State of Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1982)[2] Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921)[3] Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)[4] 1 U.S. Code § 106b - Amendments to Constitution

Norman Borlaug is, arguably, a prime candidate.Dr Borlaug was born and raised on a farm in Idaho in 1913. He was never hungry, but he witnessed food riots in the streets of Minneapolis in 1933 during the Great Depression. He made it his mission to help people feed themselves so that there could be peace on earth.He became an expert in applying science to the art of agriculture with the goal of achieving higher yields per acre of farmland. He was successful in discovering and isolating shorter, hardier, higher yielding, and disease resistant strains of wheat. He then went around the world teaching farmers how to apply his techniques in order to help them feed their people and become agriculturally self reliant.In the mid 60′s, Borlaug helped India and Pakistan avoid famine by substantially increasing their crop yields. Many say that Borlaug helped avoid a billion deaths by developing his breed of crops and helping countries implement more scientific methods of farming.He is a hero to many people, especially to those in modern agricultural industry. However, he has critics too. Some say that he is the father of the GMO movement. Others argue that his techniques have led to the widespread adoption and overuse of pesticides and that his breed of crop uses too much water. His critics also disagree with his introduction of non-indigenous crop rather than local varieties.I leave the last word to Borlaug: “some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things”.Tribute : Norman Borlaug(1914-2009): Prevented a Billion Deaths from StarvationNorman Borlaug - BiographicalForgotten Benefactor of Humanity