Bill Description: House Bill 464 would authorize the governor to develop and enter into an interstate compact for border security among interested states.
Rating: +1
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 464 would create Chapter 97, Title 67, Idaho Code, to authorize the governor to develop and enter into "an interstate compact for border security among interested states."
The governor would be specifically "authorized to execute such a compact without legislative approval when either this state or another state with whom the compact is executed is subject to an invasion or is in imminent danger as will not admit delay."
The bill further states, "It is the intent of the legislature that the compact developed and executed under this chapter not require congressional approval." In order to comply with existing legal precedent regarding when an interstate compact requires congressional approval, the bill also says, "The compact may not increase the political power of the compacting states in relation to the federal government."
Among the issues an interstate compact developed under this law could address would be "sharing law enforcement intelligence on illegal activity occurring at the border with Mexico or Canada"; "sharing state resources in order to build a physical barrier, a comprehensive technological surveillance system, or both, on state land to deter or detect illegal activity occurring at the border with Mexico or Canada"; "sharing other law enforcement resources to ensure the protection of personnel and property"; and "other actions that are necessary by existing circumstances to secure the border or borders identified in the interstate compact."
An interstate compact created under this act would be constitutional and consistent with existing legal precedent. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution is also potentially relevant because it allows states to engage in otherwise prohibited military actions when "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
(+1)
