I have now taken the oath to the Constitution twice:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Idaho, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of __________ according to the best of my ability.”

Taking an oath is meant to protect the people, our state, our nation, and even those of us who are elected to serve. Our oath is clear: we solemnly swear to support both the United States Constitution and the Idaho Constitution.

These documents are not open-ended. They define and limit what government is allowed to do. That limitation is intentional.

Let me give a simple example. When you take your car in to have the tires rotated, do you need to list everything the mechanic is not allowed to do? Of course not. You give permission to rotate the tires, nothing more. If that work order does not authorize an oil change, replacing the radio, or repainting the car, the shop has no authority to do those things, no matter how strongly they believe you “need” them.

They are limited to rotating the tires because that is the only authority you granted.

The same principle applies to our Constitutions. Government does not have unlimited power. We have no authority to go beyond what is written and granted. Anything outside that authority is not ours to take, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to tax and spend for three, and only three purposes: to pay the debts of the United States, to provide for the common defense, and to promote the general welfare of the nation. At the Founding, this authority was intentionally limited. Paying debts meant honoring national obligations to preserve credit and stability. Providing for the common defense meant protecting the entire country from external threats, one of the primary reasons the states formed a union in the first place. These were understood as clear, national responsibilities, not open-ended permissions.

The phrase “general welfare” was never intended to turn the federal government into a charity, a business partner, or a national problem-solver for every social need. The Founders rejected that idea outright. James Madison warned that treating “general welfare” as a blank check would destroy every constitutional limit on federal power. Government was designed to be limited in scope and restrained in action, not a distributor of benefits or manager of industries. Compassion, charity, and local needs were meant to be addressed by families, churches, communities, and States, not centralized in Washington. When government spends beyond its written authority, no matter how well-intentioned, it is no longer governing by consent but by assumption. The Constitution draws clear boundaries, and crossing them erodes both liberty and accountability.

The Idaho Constitution grants authority carefully and sparingly. Like the U.S. Constitution, it gives the Legislature the power to tax, appropriate, and spend public funds, primarily laid out in Article VII (Finance and Revenue). But what it does not do is just as important as what it does. The Constitution does not require the state to fund an ever-expanding list of programs, services, or entitlements. There are no broad mandates for welfare systems, infrastructure spending, healthcare programs, or economic development schemes. Instead, the document is written to limit government, restrain debt, prohibit misuse of public credit, and protect the people from unchecked authority.

The few funding obligations that do appear in the Constitution are narrow and specific. They include compensation for constitutional officers, judges, and legislators, and the duty to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools, including protecting the permanent school endowment and distributing its earnings. That is it. Beyond these limited guarantees, nearly all other state spending exists by legislative discretion, not constitutional command. Roads, prisons, health programs, agencies, and modern policy initiatives are funded because lawmakers choose to fund them, not because the Constitution requires it. This distinction matters. When spending is treated as mandatory simply because it has existed for years or is supported by federal dollars, we drift away from constitutional government. The Idaho Constitution was designed to set boundaries, not write blank checks—and it places the responsibility squarely on legislators to know those limits and govern within them.

The reason I am sharing all of this is simple: we have forgotten the purpose of government and our responsibilities as “We the People,” and we are now living with the consequences. Last week at the Capitol, we made some difficult decisions. Some were necessary and good; others will carry consequences because we have failed, over time, to fully support and adhere to our Constitutions.

Our Founders placed limits on government for a reason. They had lived under the oppression of a power-hungry king who abused authority and burdened the people. Those limits were not accidental, they were intentional safeguards. I strongly encourage everyone to read not only the Constitution, but also the Declaration of Independence, to understand what our Founding Fathers fought to free us from and why they structured government the way they did.

Constitution of the United States, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers

Last Week:

On the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC), we voted to add an additional 1 percent reduction to the FY 2026 budget and a 2 percent reduction for FY 2027, beyond the Governor’s proposed 3 percent holdback. This is only the beginning. JFAC is actively examining further reductions, and the germane committees are also identifying policies that can and should be repealed.

In response, we received many emails, phone calls, and visits from people fearful of losing funding they depend on. Some understood the reality; many did not fully grasp that Idaho does not have the revenue to sustain programs funded by the federal government, especially as our national debt approaches $39 trillion. It has never been the proper role of government to fund everything. That is a hard truth, but an honest one. Past and present elected officials have violated their oath, not lightly stated, but plainly evident when one studies our founding documents and compares them to how government now operates.

Another concerning vote was on HCR 25, which sends a message that Idaho supports a Convention of States to pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment. Once again, this proposal reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our founding documents, which already make clear that government is to live within its means and avoid debt, as I shared above.

The problem has never been a lack of constitutional guidance. The problem is a lack of discipline, discipline in spending what is constitutional and refusing what is not, and discipline in remaining steadfast to the oath we solemnly swear to uphold and defend. Passing unconstitutional budgets and then calling for constitutional changes to fix the consequences of that behavior puts the blame in the wrong place.

This House Concurrent Resolution will now make its way to the Senate. I pray the Senate recognizes that sending a select few to alter our Constitution is not what needs fixing. A new amendment will not erase $39 trillion in debt. It will not change the hearts of men, nor will it suddenly instill the courage to stop spending beyond our authority. If we have not kept our word to uphold the Constitution we already have, there is no reason to believe rewriting it will make us more faithful. The Constitution has restrained power and preserved order for nearly 250 years.

What is broken is not the document, it is our willingness to live by it.

!!Contact all of your Idaho Senators this week to share your concerns!!

Quote of the Week:

James Madison

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions… They diminish that reverence which is necessary to the best government.”
— Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1788

Why this matters:
Madison feared that repeated changes would train citizens and officials alike to treat the Constitution as temporary and negotiable. A Convention of States risks doing exactly that, lowering reverence rather than restoring restraint.

Bible verse of the Week:

Proverbs 29:2

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”
Authority is a stewardship, not a license.