AI can do some crazy things, like explaining to you how insane our national debt is.

For instance, if you stacked 40 trillion $1 bills on top of one another, they would be 2,714,646 miles tall.

The average distance to the moon is about 238,855 miles, so we’re talking about more than 11 times the distance to the moon.

• Total Inches: 40,000,000,000,000 × 0.0043 = 172,000,000,000 inches

• Total Feet: 172,000,000,000 ÷ 12 = 14,333,333,333.33 feet

• Total Miles: 14,333,333,333.33 ÷ 5,280 = 2,714,646 miles

If, instead of stacking them, you laid them flat end-to-end (a single bill is 6.14 inches long), they would stretch about 3,876,262 miles, long enough to loop around the Earth’s equator 155 times.

Or think about it another way. Packing $40 trillion in single dollar bills would require roughly 29.9 million standard shipping pallets, which would completely fill an ultra-massive warehouse complex spanning 149.5 million square feet.

Or another way. If someone paid $1 million a year toward the accumulation of $40 trillion, it would take 40,000,000 years.

There was once a time when we balanced our federal budget. Once upon a time, Congressman Simpson and Senator Crapo led a large bipartisan group of lawmakers urging a congressional “supercommittee” to adopt a debt-reduction plan of up to $4 trillion. Remember that?

It was November 2011. The national debt had just surpassed $15 trillion at that time.

I harp on our Representatives and Senators in Congress all the time. It just feels like they are paralyzed by fear to do the right thing—to oppose haphazard and dangerous, unilateral trade policy, to do something regarding a unilateral war in Iran, to oppose the unchecked corruption of the executive family.

Do we really have to add another thing to the list?

Yes, we do.

It is extremely difficult to vote for people who have been in Congress for over 33 years (Crapo), 27 years (Simpson), and 17 years (Risch), when we’re falling off the fiscal cliff, holding on by a finger. If states and local governments can do it (balance their budgets), why not the federal government? We’ve been asking this question for decades.

All of this government borrowing leads to:

• Higher interest rates, making mortgages, car loans, student loans, and credit cards more expensive

• Crowded-out private investment because money goes toward government bonds instead of productive business expansion

• Annual net interest payments on the debt now rivaling or exceeding major budget items like defense or Medicare

• Less room for the government to respond effectively to unexpected national emergencies, recessions, or wars

• Lost faith among global investors in the nation’s ability to pay back its obligations, resulting in severe market volatility, forced painful cuts to public problems or sharp tax hikes

No single person or political party is solely to blame. But it will require crisis-mode thinking by all of us to get out of this. There may be nothing more important.

How did it come to this?

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a scary mental illness and a form of child abuse. A caregiver (usually a parent) falsely invents, exaggerates, or actively causes physical or mental illness in a child or other dependent, often to get attention, sympathy, or some other benefit.

There’s a lot of lying that happens. Lying about symptoms. Telling doctors a child is sick when they are well. Altering medical tests. Tampering with samples. Faking lab results. Giving a child drugs or medicine in order to cause real sickness. Withholding food or interfering with medical treatment.

Some really, really sick stuff.

In return, the child victim ends up undergoing a lot of painful, unneeded medical tests and surgeries, suffers long-term physical harm, trauma, or emotional distress, and can face the risk of permanent injury or death in extreme cases. And brainwashing. The child can start to believe the lies the parent is telling.

Donald Trump is engaging in Munchausen syndrome by proxy on his victim, America.

He has falsely invented and exaggerated claims of massive election fraud, purely to obtain his own purposes. He knows he didn’t win in 2020. He likewise knows that election fraud is a miniscule issue in 2026. But he lies every chance he gets—because he wants to win elections by hook or by crook.

His proposed treatment for the false symptoms is the SAVE America Act of 2026, which would wrest control over federal elections away from the states to require:

• Proof of citizenship to register to vote, mandating physical, documentary proof such as a passport or birth certificate

• Eligible photo identification for in-person voting and identification rules for requesting and submitting absentee ballots, and

• Major restrictions on mail-in and absentee voting strictly to approved circumstances, such as personal illness, disability, military service, or travel

Among other things.

He knows that states have low incidents of voter fraud. He knows that there is not a documented, verified case of voter fraud deciding an election. Even by the Heritage Foundation’s own tracking numbers on voter fraud show a miniscule amount over the past 13 to 38 years of data:

He knows that adding a bunch of extra steps to vote is a deterrent. He knows that the need isn’t there. But it serves his purposes.

He knows that mail-in ballot voting is safe. He uses a mail-in ballot for his own vote. He knows that major restrictions on mail-in ballots will suppress the vote.

Like a parent engaging in Munchausen syndrome by proxy, he has partially convinced the victim of his lies.

But doctors often see through the syndrome, trying to tell parents that “the child is fine,” “she doesn’t need that treatment,” or “the child’s health is managing well-enough on its own,” sometimes to little or no effect.

Republican congress members also ought to know better. They ought to see that the proposed treatment doesn’t fit the symptoms. They know that the side-effect of the SAVE America Act—lower turnout among minorities—is probable. Like a doctor, they should be telling the parent,

“The country doesn’t need this treatment.”

“The country is fine.”

“The states are handling this well-enough on their own.”

If they’re true to their oaths, like a doctor is to their Hippocratic Oath, they would seek to do no harm. They’d speak truth and insist on facts. They wouldn’t give America an overtreatment.

The SAVE America Act has some valid points, but as a whole it is undeniable voter suppression with the goal of changing the midterm outcome.

Like a child victim of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, we might benefit from some elements of the bill, but ramming the entire treatment down our throats is unnecessary and will create negative side-effects.

Even the name of the bill denotes a hyperbolic health message.

In perhaps the most well-known recent case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, the child victim decided she had had enough of the debilitating effects of her mother’s lies, and she broke free.

We’re the victim here. So when do we snap out of it and break free?

Tell your U.S. senators to oppose the SAVE America Act. Leave our state elections alone. State election officials have tons of experience running successful elections. They know how to do it right.

Unless your U.S. Senators can prove that the mentally-ill “parent’s” wild, colossal fabrications about the 2020 election are actually true,

Unless they can show that if the SAVE America Act isn’t passed the “parent’s” ridiculous repeated lie that “we won’t have a country anymore” is actually true,

then they need to stop parroting those lies and stand up to the lying, abusive parent, once and for all.

“We cannot assume that the struggle is ended. It is never-ending. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It was the price yesterday. It is the price today, and it will ever be the price.” ~ President John F. Kennedy

What do I make of the Declaration of Independence on this, America’s 250th birthday?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Historian Walter Isaakson states, in his book by the same name, that this is “the greatest sentence ever written.” America—and, indeed, the world—has struggled to fully realize the gravity of this sentence ever since. And it is right that we should continue that struggle for the next 250 years.

From a historical and literal perspective, there is much to say about what the signers meant in each of these words, whether the nation lived up to the principles the words described, or indeed whether the signers even did—much more than I intend to get into here.

But regardless, the point was not merely to identify abuses of the crown and rights of the colonies.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

This was no mere statement of rights. Indeed, it was a declaration of duty.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

And they stood together in their duty, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and “mutually pledg[ing] to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

That duty did not die when freedom from Great Britain was obtained.

On this 250th, the lesson I take from the Declaration is that it is our duty to continue the struggle to fully understand and live up to the lofty principles stated therein.

It is from these principles that the Constitution was drafted and amended, and continues to be reviewed and interpreted.

It is my duty to understand the Constitution that “we the people” created, and to insist that our leaders abide by it.

It is my duty to throw off the cords of despotism as and when they appear, in whatever form.

It is my duty to fight to preserve the rights and liberties of all people, especially those I disagree with.

This fire of duty must be an eternal flame.

So tomorrow I will shoot fireworks, grill burgers, and attend parades and celebrations.

But something will be gravely missing if I do not take a moment to stop, read the Declaration, put myself in the shoes of the drafters, and let it stand as a reminder of my duty as an American.

The President doesn’t have the power to casually apply tariffs to imports from any country in the world. The Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress.

He doesn’t have the police power to send troops into states to police for crimes. The states have that power.

He doesn’t have the power to bomb unmarked boats from foreign nations without getting a declaration of war from Congress.

He doesn’t have the power to detain people on U.S. soil and send them to foreign jails without due process.

He doesn’t have the power to choose not to spend money budgeted by Congress.

He doesn’t have the power to shut down government agencies established by Congress.

He doesn’t have the power to punish law firms, corporations, universities, news organizations, and individuals for their political viewpoints, things said, people represented, or classes taught.

He doesn’t have the power to take funds allocated by Congress to spend on one thing and instead spend them on another thing.

He doesn’t have the power to give billions of dollars unbudgeted and unplanned by Congress to a foreign nation.

He doesn’t have the power to disregard the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship clause.

He doesn’t have the power to authorize searches and seizures of people on American soil without complying with the 4th Amendment.

He doesn’t have the power to depose a foreign leader with military power without getting a declaration of war from Congress.

He doesn’t have the power to seize millions in foreign assets and place them in a slush fund in a bank in a foreign country.

He doesn’t have the power to unilaterally disregard or violate international treaties, which are defined in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

He doesn’t have the power to unilaterally wage war on a foreign country without even consulting Congress.

He doesn’t have the power to violate the foreign emoluments clause, either directly or indirectly, by accepting lucrative benefits from foreign governments and foreign leaders investing in the President’s and his family members’ businesses.

He doesn’t have the power to sue the government he leads, and then settle his own case by creating a billion dollar fund for his friends and pre-pardoning himself, his family, and all of his family businesses from any future IRS tax audits.

“We The People” set up this system of limited government that delegates the executive branch limited powers. The Constitution places more powers with Congress than with the Executive, but ultimately retains all unenumerated powers with the States and the people.

Congress took oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. They know what it says. They know the laws. Yet in the face of vast Executive Branch overreach, Congress does nothing.

I’m in search of a leader. Someone willing to stand up in the face of withering criticism—simply because it is the right thing to do. Who will uphold their oath? Who will protect our Constitution? We can only rely on the courts so much. But when will the first branch do its job?

We’re not the first nation to watch the neutering of the people’s houses of government at the behest of the executive. The most famous example was ancient Rome. But we don’t have to follow Rome’s path.

It’s up to the people. Do we still care about the Constitution and rule of law? Then we must lead. It’s becoming apparent that we can’t rely on anyone else.

So, about that White House East Wing remodel job….

President Trump has promised the country for almost a year that the cost of his massive demolition project on America’s first house would not be paid for by Americans; that it would be paid for by private donors. This huge ballroom—some say which would be larger than the rest of the entire White House itself—would be essentially a gift to America.

So he razed the East Wing.

But now, with the East Wing looking like, well, this beautiful picture (above), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has released a long-term immigration and border patrol funding bill that—surprise—includes $1 billion of taxpayer funds earmarked for security improvements for the ballroom project.

Somebody didn’t plan before beginning the destruction.

And then there’s the Iran War.

We’re now past the point where Congressional approval is mandatory pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, with no end in sight. The U.S. has used at least 45% of its stockpile of Precision Strike Missiles; at least half of its THAAD missiles; and nearly 50% of its Patriot air defense interceptor missiles—on Iran.

That’s an awful lot of destruction on a war that is not over.

The strait is still not fully open. Iran launched a fresh wave of drones and missiles. Iran is still attacking U.S. ships in the Gulf region.

And in the midst of a continued war of destruction, the Pentagon releases a staggering $1.5 trillion budget request to, at least in part, get our war-making power back on a solid footing. The national defense budget has never exceeded $1 trillion before. But wait, we also learn that the ongoing cost of prosecuting the Iran War—is not included in that total.

Someone didn’t plan before beginning the destruction.

This is an ongoing trend. The ballroom. The war. The tariffs. The ICE raids.

This is what happens when one man acts alone, and Congress dithers.

Bad decisions. Bad planning.

And we’re left holding the bag.

The ugly image of the demolished East Wing may be the most striking symbol of Trump’s second term.

I come from a religious tradition that suffered intense bigotry and hatred in early America. Mormons were treated horribly, even in my own state of Idaho. For instance, the “Idaho Test Oath” passed by the Idaho legislature in 1884 prevented Mormons from voting, serving on a jury, or serving in elected office.

But there is a new form of religious bigotry brewing in the United States, against Muslims.

Consider the post on X by Representative Andy Ogles, above. Here we have a sitting representative in U.S. Congress saying that, essentially, the 1st Amendment freedom of religion does not apply to a certain faith group.

And he is not alone. Ogles is a member of the “Sharia-Free America Caucus” claims to “reject Sharia in America.” And it claims to have 60 members in Congress, including our own Russ Fulcher from Idaho.

There is no other effort in American politics so singularly focused on one faith group. This bigotry leads to inflammatory and unconstitutional statements like the nonsense spewed regularly by Rep. Ogles.

And it has become clear that these guys don’t even know what they’re talking about.

Anyone within a faith group should understand the similarity between Sharia law and what might simply be called God’s law or divine law in a different faith. The main point of Sharia law is that it is a religious system of laws for an individual believer to follow. Laws concerning how to practice the pillars of Islam. Laws concerning other matters in a Muslim’s life. Shahada (faith), Salah (prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Sawm (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage). The pillars of Islam help a Muslim foster spiritual growth, self-discipline, and social responsibility.

Which is not so dissimilar from any other faith tradition.

And which is obviously consistent with a democratic society and is protected by the Constitution.

It’s important for non-Muslims like myself to dispel the notion that Sharia law is somehow a takeover of American laws, courts, or government. While some small minority may have this belief (in another context, think Christian Nationalist and Idahoan Doug Wilson), the vast majority of Muslims believe, as stated above, that Sharia law is a religious law for Muslim believers to guide their lives.

The religious bigotry spreads deep. It’s the fear of the unknown. Even state legislators get swept up in it.

This post on X has bothered me ever since it was posted. Can any other faith imagine a sitting legislator saying they were not happy that a certain church building was being built in an Idaho city, or that a city may or may not have had any part in approving it? (By the way, Ammon had no part in approving a mosque being built in an industrial-zoned property—churches can already build in all zones). What it says is that certain rights protected by the Constitution are for faith traditions we like, but not those we don’t.

As Americans, we cannot ever accept such talk. Being a part of a faith tradition which has historically been badly treated, I must stand up against this kind of thinking. We all need to push back against religious or areligious bigotry whenever we see it.

We are not a Christian nation or a nation built on any specific religion. What we are is exactly what Rep. Ogles dismissed—a pluralistic society. We’re a tradition built on the 1st Amendment, which should be shouted from the rooftops:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Abraham Lincoln described the Constitution in glowing terms as our nation’s “political religion”:

"Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars."

First Amendment freedoms are first in that glorious Constitution for a reason. This is our American standard.

Protect the Constitution by protecting religious freedom. Reject religious bigotry. And recognize where the focus of it is sitting these days—on Muslims.

We must stand up for every person to exercise their faith—or lack thereof—in America.

As mayor of a small town, I was subject to ethical requirements. The Ethics in Government Act required that I disclose conflicts of interest, and best practice was that where there was a conflict I would recuse myself from participating in the deliberations or the vote where there was a tie on the city council. I did that on several occasions, some where the I may have been too close to one of the parties requesting something from the city or where I may have had communications with a party prior to a decision being made.

This ethical system was ingrained in the elected officials. It was counseled by the city attorney. Elected officials just knew what was required when there was a conflict, and, on the whole, they acted accordingly. I don’t mean to say that they (or I) were always perfect in this regard, but we tried to do the right thing.

The people were watching. Our consciences were watching.

The obvious purpose of such a requirement is to remove self-dealing from government. We don’t want our elected officials in a position of power where they can approve their own requests. We don’t do that in America. It’s unethical.

Governments across America have similar requirements. Elected legislative or state public officials in Idaho are subject to the same requirements as a mayor or city council person. In the U.S. Senate, Rule 37.1, 37.4 and 37.7 address conflicts of interest. There are similar rules in the U.S. House. In essence, congresspeople are not supposed to enrich themselves by their votes.

That’s not to say, again, that Congress does not enrich itself by its votes.

But again, the people are watching.

If you’re a public official in the United States, you are taught principles of ethics and to try to avoid conflicts of interest.

But the President of the United States must have missed that training.

On January 29, 2026, President Trump’s lawyers filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, against the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Complaint alleges that the U.S. government should be held liable for the leak of his federal tax returns during his first term as President. The man responsible, Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn, is already in jail for his actions.

But President Trump’s lawsuit asks the IRS and the Treasury Department to pay the President $10 billion at a minimum for the leak.

To put it another way, the President is suing the American people for $10 billion.

The Complaint makes a valid claim, and one that the courts and Congress have recognized. Leaking tax returns is not legal.

But just consider this. Who is the head of the IRS? The Chief Executive Officer is Frank Bisignano. Who is his boss? Bisignano reports to the Secretary of the Treasury (which is also being sued), Scott Bessent. Who is Bessent’s boss?

Donald Trump.

Who is representing the IRS and the Department of Treasury in this lawsuit?

The Department of Justice.

Who is the head of the Department of Justice?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

What is Blanche’s background?

He is formerly a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he became known as a lead defense attorney for, you guessed it, Donald Trump, in multiple high-profile criminal cases.

And Trump seems to be clueless about this massive conflict of interest, or perhaps he doesn’t care. When reporters asked him about it on Air Force One, he gave the most galling answer you could ever expect in this situation:

“I’m supposed to work out a settlement with myself.”

That’s right, since he’s the boss on one side, and the plaintiff on the other side, that’s exactly what he would be doing—working out a settlement with himself.

Which, of course, Trump says he would give all to charity.

But that’s the Americans’ money. Make no mistake about it—at the end of the day the President is suing to take away $10 billion from American taxpayers. If it makes you feel any better that he “promises” to give it to charity, even if you believe him, then you’re missing the whole point.

News just yesterday was that the President is currently negotiating with the IRS and Treasury Department on some kind of a settlement. Because that’s exactly what he said he would do.

Never before in the history of our country has a sitting president sued his own government.

Never before in the history of our country have we seen such a shocking disregard for ethical rules of government and trying to avoid conflicts of interest.

And from Idaho’s congressional delegation? We have heard nary a peep,

About the $10 billion lawsuit,

Against their constituents,

Filed by the President of the United States of America.

“Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of ‘longstanding’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.’ Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.” ~New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas)

On April 2, 2026, the Idaho House was in session and debating House Bill 621, which would have allowed people to concealed carry guns inside courthouses, so long as they weren’t being carried in the parts of courthouses where actual “court” was being held. In other words, the bill would have allowed concealed carry inside courthouse offices for county commissioners, clerks, administrative services, main hallways, etc., just not in courtrooms, judges chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, etc.

As a lawyer I could immediately see a number of serious issues with this bill. Whereas current metal detectors are set at the entrance (which counties rightly try to limit to one location for security purposes), where would you move them to within the building? Law enforcement can easily police a single entrance to a building like a courthouse, but once you are in a courthouse how many different ways are there to get to a courtroom? Would law enforcement need to set up multiple checks? Or would they simply set up right at the courtroom door?

The logistics of this bill were a nightmare, not to mention the anticipated costs of retrofitting courthouses to make sure they were safe.

I expressed this to several legislators as the debate was happening. One by one they agreed—bad bill.

So I fully expected a close vote (after all, it was on guns) but thought the bill may not pass the House.

But as described in the Idaho Capital Sun, something entirely different happened.

Mind you, the bill was co-sponsored by Nampa Republican Representative Brent Crane. Crane stood to introduce and debate in favor of the bill, but with an odd take.

Nampa Republican Rep. Brent Crane called the bill an unfunded mandate for counties. The bill, some lawmakers say, will force counties to overhaul courthouse security screening setups so they only prohibit guns in courtrooms.

In the Canyon County courthouse, Crane said county officials will need to move metal detectors from the front door up to floors two and three – where courtrooms are. And they’ll need more staff. Still, he said he’d vote for the bill.

“I’m voting for the bill. I’ve got 100% voting record with the NRA,” Crane said, referring to the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobbying group. “Don’t want any of you guys to screw up your voting record with the NRA. But this is wrong.”

Idaho Falls Republican Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen had done her homework on costs to Bonneville County if the bill passed: more than $2 million at first and then $1.3 million each year going forward.

Then moments later, she previewed the bill’s fate.

“We’ll all be voting for this bill, but it should have been worked better,” Mickelsen said.

Then came the kicker. Moscow Republican Rep. Brandon Mitchell, also a bill sponsor, chimed in:

“I completely believe in local control. I’ve said that several times. However, local control when they start stepping on people’s rights, I think that’s the state’s responsibility to step in and fix that, correct it,” Mitchell said.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. So I texted legislators:

“It’s called the sensitive places” doctrine—firearms can be restricted under the 2nd Amendment in sensitive places like government buildings. The applicable recent Supreme Court case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

Anyone who says the 2nd Amendment requires allowing guns in government buildings is filling you with their own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

No right to bring guns into sensitive places. That’s the law.”

But the bill still passed the House on a nearly party-line 56-11 vote, as anticipated by Crane and Mickelsen.

So when does strict adherence to high NRA scores outweigh common sense? My guess was that the House probably knew the bill would die in the Senate (which it did). And they simply wanted their votes to be on the record in favor of an NRA-backed bill.

But that’s kind of hokey.

Especially when Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court case that describes the “sensitive places” doctrine, was an NRA case.

As it turned out, the NRA was heavily involved in the Bruen case. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. is a state affiliate of the NRA. The NRA funded the Bruen case. The case was filed through the NRA’s Office of Litigation Counsel.

And then, the Court in Bruen confirmed as part of its ruling that restrictions on carrying in sensitive places such as courthouses did not violate the 2nd Amendment.

And yet, state legislators hemmed and hawed over how horrible House Bill 621 was, and then voted for it, to protect their NRA scores. And while I don’t know for sure whether the NRA backed House Bill 621, given reactions from legislators I think it must be a given.

The logical disconnect is something I still can’t get over.

After the Bruen case was decided, Wayne LaPierre, the then-executive vice president of the NRA, hailed it as “another landmark win for constitutional freedom and the NRA.” He continued, “This decision unequivocally validates the position of the NRA and should put lawmakers on notice: no law should be passed that impinges this individual freedom.”

A Bruen case, which, I remind you, reaffirmed that laws banning guns in courthouses are constitutional.

I leave you with a few takeaways from this:

• First, lawmakers (and Americans in general) don’t think much about the actual parameters of the 2nd Amendment as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t expect this will change anytime soon.

• Second, there is no doubt that the NRA knows these parameters, but I’m not sure that educating on the subject is of that much importance to the NRA. I’ll let the reader surmise why that may be.

• Third, the NRA has a near-absolute stranglehold on state Republican legislators when it comes to gun bills. Logic and constitutional nuances be damned.

As citizens it is up to each one of us to know and understand our Constitution and that it is the job of the courts to interpret the Constitution. And although political pressure (especially in an election year) can be overwhelming, it’s also vital for us to insist that if our legislators are voting, they understand what they are voting on—especially the constitutional nuances that the special lobbying groups won’t necessarily explain. And finally, associations obviously serve an important purpose in our country, but we can’t use them as a substitute for using our brains.

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” ~Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1932)

In February of 2026 I wrote in the Idaho Statesman that the legislature should allow locals to make their own decisions about nondiscrimination ordinances, rather than seeking to preempt and block all such ordinances across the state as they were attempting to do in House Bill 557.

One of the many of the important reasons why I believed the State should not use its preemption powers was the important concept of local control. Local control is a recognition that one size does not fit all. It’s also an acknowledgment that government closest to the people is best. In many ways, it is a belief similar to that described by Justice Brandeis, that allowing localized laboratories of democracy is a good thing.

For many years I have heard legislators echo this sentiment, but in practice it seemed that the allure of the opposite of local control—what I will call state control—was too strong. Decisions made in Boise by two-year term legislators, for the entire state, somehow were better than decisions made by your neighbors who may sit on the city council or school board.

But this year I heard and saw a different argument for state control. The argument essentially went like this: “Idaho is a Dillon’s Rule state. Local governments get their authority from the state. Local governments are not entitled to do whatever they want, and it’s up to the state to keep them under control.”

Just for clarity, here is the definition of “Dillon’s Rule”:

“It is recognized in Idaho that a municipal corporation, as a creature of the state, possesses and exercises those powers either expressly or impliedly granted to it. This position, also known as ‘Dillon’s Rule,’ has been generally recognized as the prevailing view in Idaho. Under Dillon’s Rule, a municipal corporation may exercise only those powers granted to it by either the state Constitution or the legislature. The legislature has absolute power to change, modify and destroy those powers at its discretion.” ~Sun Valley Co. v. City of Sun Valley, 109 Idaho 424 (1985)

The opposite, which is called “Home Rule,” grants local governments greater autonomy to pass ordinances and manage their own affairs, provided they do not conflict with state law.

Too often I have heard that the fact that Idaho is a “Dillon’s Rule” state means that the same relationship between the federal and state governments which allow states to be essentially “laboratories of democracy” simply is not possible in the state/local government structure.

But this is a logical fallacy.

Dillon’s Rule and Home Rule are simply definitions for the legal relationship between state and local governments. But this legal relationship does not necessarily mean that there has to be stifling state control.

It is possible for Idaho state government leaders to do both at once—acknowledge Idaho as a Dillon’s Rule state, and at the same time, choose to allow local governments to largely manage their own affairs.

As the Court said in the Sun Valley case, the legislature has “absolute power to change, modify and destroy those powers at its discretion.” Which means, it also has the power to not change, modify or destroy local government powers. And this, in turn, also means that the legislature has the power to pass laws which empower local government decision-making. All within the guise of Dillon’s Rule.

So now that we have dispensed with the argument that Dillon’s Rule inevitably means that there is state control, and likewise with the argument that Dillon’s Rule means that Idaho local governments cannot be “laboratories of democracy,” there is only one more question left to ask:

“Does the Idaho legislature want to empower local control?”

Is there utility in local cities, counties, school districts and other taxing districts experimenting with new ideas, passing unique ordinances, and paving their own path forward? As a mayor I saw immense utility in this. I loved to see what other cities were doing well, or conversely, not well. Improvement involved an element of comparing and contrasting and trying out new things.

I am a firm believer and lover of the benefits of federalism, and I believe that they are not inapposite in the local government setting. Let local governments succeed and fail on their own merits. The heavy hand of the Washington is despised by Idahoans, just as the heavy hand of Boise should be. They are not different. Just because the state has power over local governments that the federal government does not have over the states does not mean the state should use that power in all instances.

But more often these days, the urge to be the all-powerful state government is just too hard to shake.

For instance, in Senate Bill 1352 the legislature stepped into the shoes of local planning and zoning, forcing dramatic changes to comprehensive plans across the state to allow the equivalent of tiny home subdivisions in all residential zones in every city over 10,000 in population. Senate Bill 1448 put the legislature back in the position of a local library board, telling libraries what they can and can’t put on their shelves. House Bill 561 saw the legislature in the city council role, penalizing local governments which fly flags the legislature doesn’t like. In House Bill 822, the legislature decided it was a school board, ordering teachers and school administrators to inform a minor’s parents if the student does something as benign as asking to be referred to by a nickname. And House Bill 752 saw the legislature step into the shoes of all local governments by criminalizing the entry of bathrooms in local government buildings that do not correspond to the person’s biological sex at birth.

The legislature also vigorously attempted (but failed) to step into the shoes of local law enforcement in House Bill 659 which would have required law enforcement to enter section 287(g) agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and into the shoes of local counties and judicial systems in House Bill 621 which would have allowed concealed carry in courthouses.

To name a few.

My purpose here is not necessarily to argue for or against a particular bill. It is also not to argue against a Dillon’s Rule analysis of Idaho state law.

But, at the very least, Idaho should recognize the value of local control, that being a Dillon’s Rule state does not prevent legislators from acting in favor of local control, that one-size-fits-all bills can be bad for Idaho local governments, and that we can still experience, at the most local level, the beauty of the federal system that creates “laboratories of democracy” that allow local governments to experiment, stand and fall, and learn from one another what it takes to provide the best government for their citizens.