By Cameron Rasmusson
You wouldn’t figure routine tax conformity legislation would prompt a fierce debate over same-sex marriage and constitutional law. But that was the case in Boise on Monday, when Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, clashed with Deputy Attorney General Phil Skinner over Idaho’s legal authority.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee passed IRS tax conformity legislation in a 13-3 vote Monday. But the bill received spirited opposition from Scott, who took issue with a portion bringing Idaho tax code in line with nationally recognized same-sex marriage. According to the Spokesman-Review, Idaho tax law previously required same-sex couples to rework their state taxes if they were filing joint federal taxes.
Scott questioned why the committee was considering the legislation, given Idaho still has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. According to the Spokesman-Review, this kicked off a debate on constitutional authority, with Skinner saying that the 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison cemented “the United States Constitution [as] the supreme law of the land, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the body with the authority to interpret that law and declare what it is.”
“I apologize, I’m not a lawyer. But I do understand this little one here,” Scott replied, referring to the U.S. Congress’ enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. “So I just wonder, in Section 8, which enumerated power are you using to accomplish this?”
Skinner countered that last year’s same-sex ruling was given authority through the constitutional powers of the U.S. Supreme Court. But Scott objected to passing law that contradicted the Idaho State Constitution.
“If we want to pass this part of the bill, then we need to make a change to our state Constitution,” she said.
Scott detailed her position on her Facebook page before the vote, receiving voices of support—and some criticism—in the comment section.
“If we do not want this definition as a state, we have the ability to change our state constitution,” Scott wrote. “A vote of yes on this bill will be against our state constitution. Watch how the committee votes. It does not matter which side of the issue you are on. I keep reading the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section  and cannot figure out which enumerated power gives the feds the authority to define marriage.”
While we have you ...
... if you appreciate that access to the news, opinion, humor, entertainment and cultural reporting in the Sandpoint Reader is freely available in our print newspaper as well as here on our website, we have a favor to ask. The Reader is locally owned and free of the large corporate, big-money influence that affects so much of the media today. We're supported entirely by our valued advertisers and readers. We're committed to continued free access to our paper and our website here with NO PAYWALL - period. But of course, it does cost money to produce the Reader. If you're a reader who appreciates the value of an independent, local news source, we hope you'll consider a voluntary contribution. You can help support the Reader for as little as $1.
You can contribute at either Paypal or Patreon.Contribute at Patreon Contribute at Paypal