I am wondering if this is for protecting people like the previous Attorney
Generals who don't want that type of intervention with federal or state
This is why people do not trust politicians, passing laws behind closed doors
late at night, taking away the rights of people.Imagine what Utahans
(Republicans) would be saying if the Obama administration had sponsored or
passed this same bill!
This is a dangerous thing. Here in California, Federal prosecutors have just
convinced two judges that some arrested anti-drone demonstrators (including
ministers) have no right to a jury trial because of expediency, efficiency, and
costs. Folks, little by little we are giving away our
Constitutional protections. Are you going to be part of it?By the
way, here is the vote, all "aye" except as noted, according to the
official website (you could have looked it up)SENATE: Absent or not
voting -Knotwell, NoelHOUSE: Nays: Arent, Briscoe,
Chavez-Houck, Fisher, Janice, Greene, Hall, Ivory, King, Knotwell, McCay, Moss,
Romero, Wheatley, Wilcox, Wiley.Absent or not voting -Stanard.
It's worth remembering that when we have a State government with unlimited
powers, there are good reasons that we call it a police state. Allowing the
legislature to issue subpoenas that cannot be challenged in court is an abuse of
power and needs to be stopped.
Joseph McCarthy called. He's looking for a few good followers.
Having lived in many countries and traveled in many more, the land developers in
the legislature without any legal background can be a dangerous thing. Laws are
there to protect the innocent. Having seen people ripped from their homes in
other countries due to the power of the police states, it is a crime to have
this type of bill, if the protection for citizens isn't provided. However, the Governor is a developer and has done many things for even
$85K or $113M that is not for the benefit of the state.If the
Governor signs, who will be protected? The innocent or the guilty?
It looks like James A Dunnigan sponsored this bill. I agree with Strider its
time for some fresh faces in the house and senate.
I have no problem granting extraordinary powers to discover the truth regarding
the conduct of elected government officials or high ranking government
employees. As far as I am concerned the 5th amendment is there to protect the
people from the government, not to protect government officials from the
people.I realize this is going to sound draconian; however, it is
imperative that the American people know what their government is doing to them.
I; therefore, would support an amendment stating that the 5th amendment does not
apply to government officials while being questioned about their official
conduct. I would even consider requiring that they pass a lie detector test.Bill Clinton wrote a 900 page memoir but couldn't remember squat
under oath before a grand jury.The enemies of freedom and the
constitution would not dare play the games they are playing if they knew they
could be forced to answer questions, under oath with a polygraph attached.
Liberty might just be slightly more safe. I frankly don't care about lying
thieves in office.The 5th amendment should still apply to everyone
when it comes to private conduct.Let the argument begin.
I echo Meg30's request.Who is the sponsor, who spoke for this
measure on the floor? Sometimes we ignore what happens on the
capitol hill or feel powerless to intervene because we can't buy lunch,
dinner or other favors for them in order to get their attention. The house is up for election, half the senate the same. The names of sponsors
and those who voted in favor should be made public. After all, they tout their
record of accomplishments.Let's see the record on this piece of
Thank you editorial board for finally speaking out about over-reach in our
legislature. Recently I had begun to think you were in favor of less protection
of freedom and liberty instead of more.
Who's behind the bill?