Comments about ‘In our opinion: Veto this bill’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 31 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Meg30
Providence, UT

Who's behind the bill?

ShaunMcC
La Verkin, UT

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.

Strider303
Salt Lake City, UT

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 legislation.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

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.

wakeuputah
Provo, UT

It looks like James A Dunnigan sponsored this bill. I agree with Strider its time for some fresh faces in the house and senate.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

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?

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Joseph McCarthy called. He's looking for a few good followers.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

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.

VST
Bountiful, UT

HB 414 was originally drafted and sponsored by Rep. Jim Dunningham of Taylorsville in the House. But it was substituted in the Senate (probably by Senator John Valentine of Orem) who was the original floor sponsor in the Senate. It initially passed both Houses unanimously, but when the substituted bill was brought back to the floor in the House, 15 members voted against the substituted bill.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Correction: Jim Dunningan.

OlderGreg
USA, CA

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, Noel

HOUSE:
Nays: Arent, Briscoe, Chavez-Houck, Fisher, Janice, Greene, Hall, Ivory, King, Knotwell, McCay, Moss, Romero, Wheatley, Wilcox, Wiley.

Absent or not voting -Stanard.

Mr. Informative
Layton, UT

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!

JWB
Kaysville, UT

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 officials.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments