TEA Candidate Calls Domestic Violence Laws Unconstitutional ‘because they Discriminate Against Heterosexuals’

Tim BaldwinA Whitefish TEA Party Republican is arguing that laws against domestic violence are unconstitutional.  This is because they discriminate against heterosexuals, Tim Baldwin says.  Baldwin, who hopes to replace Derek Skees in the race for Whitefish’s House District 4, made this argument in court today as the attorney for a man charged with domestic violence.

As the Whitefish Pilot report, Baldwin said,

“The state can no more discriminate against the heterosexual class of persons than it can discriminate against the homosexual class of persons similarly situated,” Baldwin wrote. “Were the [Partner and Family Member Assault laws] to enhance penalties only against homosexual partners, it would be facilely unconstitutional…”

Based on this argument, the Lincoln County justice court judge dismissed the domestic violence charge.  The state of Montana has appealed.

Baldwin and his father Chuck Baldwin are featured in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s recent Intelligence Report, which focuses on the recent uptick in extremist activity in Kalispell and the Flathead. In the article “A Gathering of Eagles: Extremists Look to Montana” the SPLC details the activities of the various far-right movements and their leaders, including Chuck and Tim Baldwin.

Tim Baldwin took issue with the report on the TEA Party blog PolyMontana, saying that he is not a racist:

“Some of my closest friends are of African descent. The same can be said of Chuck Baldwin.”

A local Republican penned an opinion piece about some of the problems with Baldwin in today’s Bigfork Eagle. The author writes that he doesn’t find Tim Baldwin to have “a moral compass or common sense. This makes his Republican status irrelevant, and I hope it makes him unelectable.”

Baldwin is running against Vietnam War veteran and forestry consultant Ed Lieser.


147 Comments on "TEA Candidate Calls Domestic Violence Laws Unconstitutional ‘because they Discriminate Against Heterosexuals’"

  1. This guy is nuts. Maybe nuttier than Skees, who turned out to be an embarrassment to the Republicans and to Whitefish. I doubt people want to go there again, but you never know, some people only vote based on the R or D following the person’s name.

  2. The GOP will never run out of idiots. Baldwin and Baldwin will soon be heading up a new hard-hitting political show, Phony Victims Unit, wherein they’ll be defending the last bastion of freedom, put-upon racist misogynist white males who don’t want to pay for anything but shoe shines, hookers and blow.

  3. …and sadly, domestic violence is not confined to heterosexual couples. In fact it is at exactly the same rate across the board.


    Although I’m still not really sure WTF Baldwin was trying to say here.

  4. I think the only thing this tool is trying to accomplish is to get himself attention from extremist media outlets. He wants attention so he takes bizarre positions on controversial issues in hopes of getting himself recognition as a Wing Nut of note.

  5. We are all of African descent and as the Gregorian calendar plays its tricks on my pagan bones the full moon lights the way to the relative safety of another Obama term….

  6. The interesting flip side of this is that he is, by extension, arguing that restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.

  7. Baldwin made the argument on behalf of his client. His brief on his client’s behalf is not his platform as a candidate for office.

    • On the page you link to below, I notice that he does make this argument as a candidate. I too was surprised

      “Is Montana Anti-Heterosexual, Anti-Homosexual, or Confused?
      by Tim Baldwin, June 7, 2012 (approx. 1,124 words)

      Would it be constitutional or fair that Montana statutes would treat heterosexual partners worse than homosexual partners? If the answer is, no, then you should be concerned about a Montana law that was passed by in 1985 and has been enforced ever since and does just that.”

      This is our law against domestic violence…

  8. So this guy is the current iteration of the “master race”? We are in trouble now!
    He is going to be speaking at the (forecast is for showers) convention. That should be at least as much fun as olympic badminton.

  9. Based on an earlier discussion here, I decided to give Tim a chance to convince me he isn’t just another nutcase like Skees. He has failed utterly to do so. This current situation simply highlights many of his less than palatable excuses for “ideals”.

    As much as I now believe that Tim is a nutcase, what bothers me even more about this article is that the defense worked in a court of law. My belief in our legal system has taken some pretty hard hits recently and this just adds one more nail in that coffin.

    • This judge is little more than a traffic court judge. His main concern is getting re-elected in Libby which won’t happen if he makes too much sense. If he doesn’t get re-elected he won’t make a living.

  10. The judge bought that pile of hoowie! If I lived in Lincoln county (and I am SO glad I don’t) I would be starting the recall petition. For the record, the partner and family member assault law does not make reference to sexuality at all.

    • http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

      When I was 25, my husband, at the time, explained to me he could kill me at any time and the most prison time he’d get was 2 years……….

    • For the record, see, 45-5-206(2)(b), MCA (last sentence). “Partners” have to be of the “opposite sex”.

      45-5-206. Partner or family member assault — penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of partner or family member assault if the person:
      (a) purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to a partner or family member;
      (b) negligently causes bodily injury to a partner or family member with a weapon; or
      (c) purposely or knowingly causes reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in a partner or family member.
      (2) For the purposes of Title 40, chapter 15, 45-5-231 through 45-5-234, 46-6-311, and this section, the following definitions apply:
      (a) “Family member” means mothers, fathers, children, brothers, sisters, and other past or present family members of a household. These relationships include relationships created by adoption and remarriage, including stepchildren, stepparents, in-laws, and adoptive children and parents. These relationships continue regardless of the ages of the parties and whether the parties reside in the same household.
      (b) “Partners” means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common, and persons who have been or are currently in a dating or ongoing intimate relationship with a person of the opposite sex.

  11. This guy is a complete weirdo. Go to his site. He seems to think he’s some kind of amazing philosopher and scholar. Its peppered with all the far right, militia buzzwords — 10th amendment, “Natutal Law” and whatnot.

  12. Bryonny Thompson | August 24, 2012 4:01 PM at 4:01 PM |

    What. The. H#@$. This person needs to seek help. I cannot immagine the damage a deranged individual like this would do if allowed to make our laws.

  13. Every attorney who works in the trenches of the courts makes arguments and at times takes cases in which they advocate for a position they do not themselves believe in. I have defended DUI’s, thieves, and spouse abusers in my own practice and it isn’t because I think driving while impaired, stealing or beating one’s wife is a good idea. That’s what attorneys do – advocate for a person. The good ones advocate aggressively. It is, in fact, in their job description, particularly with criminal defense attorneys.

    Tim Baldwin is not a homophobe. He did not argue that heterosexuals should be placed on a platform that is above homosexuals. He argued that the law is written in such a way that they are, as a matter of law, treated differently than homosexuals because homosexuals cannot be charged with Partner Family-Member Assaults where heterosexuals can. He made use of it on behalf of his client. He saw how the law was written and made a creative argument that won on behalf of his client. In fact, punting on a case because of how it might appear on a campaign would be far worse than doing his job.

    I hope that we don’t see 10th amendment, constitutional, or even religious arguments and immediately rush to the conclusion a person or candidate is nuts. These all play a role, and some are actually part of our history, government and Constitution.

    I have had the good fortune to work with Tim on a couple of big medical marijuana cases, and we have spent a great deal of time talking and debating on issues like government and religion in road trips around the state. We do not always see eye to eye, but Tim is nothing if not carefully considered and well spoken in his opinions and ideas. I have always known him to be an aggressive advocate of the rights of all Montanans, and he has some great ideas I would like to see made into bills at the next legislative session.

    Chris Lindsey

    • Spoken well Chris. I not jumping on that bandwagon either. It is the job of an attorney to represent a “Innocent until proven guilty” person in court. That is the formality of Law giving the accused a proper trial, no Matter what side of the Isle you come from. It is a foundation of this country that some people will never understand.

      I do not blame Tim Baldwin for doing his job.

      • …… I can though, take issue with some of his Ideas on how to move the state forward.

        • Norma, I am certainly one to listen to ideas and which ones will best serve the interests of Montana. I think Chris attested to that fact in his response above.

          As I understand it, there will be a live debate between me and Leiser in September–that is what I have been told. I look forward to it as well.

          Also, I do appreciate your objectivity.

          • Do you honestly suggest that proving in court that the partner abuse laws in Montana are unenforcable is something that “serves the interests of Montana?” How much was your fee? I don’t care what Chris (whoever the hell he is) said. What I care about is the blatent display of playing the system you seem to think is such a good thing. I am sure your client is pleased that you won the case. I am simply disgusted with you, and with a legal system that would allow something like this.

          • A lot of problems in the country right now, could be explained better if Americans had a better appreciation and understanding of the law. Politicians used to take the time to understand the law, on both sides of the Isle. They don’t anymore.

            I like to see that change, where more thoughtful and meaningful legislation was brought forward.

            More then 1100 bills were pushed last time in the Montana Legislature. Badly written bills by Bad acting Politicians, most of them unconstitutional in nature or over reaching a state agencies legal power! We need less of these kind of bullshit Bills.

            If the personal opinions and corporate lobbyists were banned from being first, and only communities and rural areas needs were addressed first this state could really benefit.

            I think that’s an Honest approach to governing.

    • Chris, thank you for your objective reply. As attorneys in the trenches on similar issues, I appreciate all you have done as an attorney and professional. I am hoping for your best!

  14. You know who else defends criminals? Tim Fox.

  15. Based upon the general allegations founded in nothing but personal bias, I will make this attempt to shed light on reality. If this does not make sense, then I do not know what else to say–perhaps Chris Lindsey, whom I highly respect, could better explain it.

    The motion I filed in the PFMA case was an equal protection argument. Montana’s Constitution guarantees every person equal protection of the laws.

    This means, where two similarly situated classes of people are treated differently, that treatment must pass the rational basis, middle-tire, or strict scrutiny test–depending on the nature of the circumstances and the rights infringed. The more fundamental the right, the higher the level of scrutiny.

    Under several Montana Supreme Court cases (esp. Justice Nelson opinions), any categorization of classes based on sexual orientation are per se suspect and subject to strict scrutiny.

    Thus, for example, a law that punishes a homosexual act is per se subject to strict scrutiny, which means the State must have a compelling state interest and the means to that interest must be narrowly tailored. As we have seen in the Montana Supreme Court, the law criminalizing homosexual conduct has been (rightfully) ruled a violation of equal protection, among other rights.

    Of course, heterosexuals are guaranteed the same protection.

    Under the PFMA statute, heterosexuals (i.e. sexual classification) are punished more severely for committing the exact same act as a homosexual–that is, simple assault.

    Given this mistreatment of the heterosexual class, Montana’s equal protection guarantee and the Montana Supreme Court’s interpretation of it render that law null and void, as I argued in my motion.

    Were the PFMA to punish homosexuals more harshly than heterosexuals (as I argued in my motion), no one would have a hard time seeing its unconstitutional effect.

    The same equal protection applies with regard to heterosexuals: the law cannot punish them more severely simply because of their sexual orientation.

    How this case can be construed into a “homophobe” allegation against me is beyond reason–and actually, is quite contrary to reason and fact.

    As I argue in my motion, homosexuals could not be punished more severely than heterosexuals. Were I to believe that homosexuals could be punished more severely, I would have had no argument regarding heterosexuals.

    The basis for the motion, in part, rests on the idea that equal protection protects homosexuals and thus, it must protect heterosexuals.

    Therefore, the conclusion is rightly this: Tim Baldwin feels that equal protection should protect homosexuals from discriminatory treatment as well. That obviously is not homophobic.

    In a recent political survey, I was asked the question, do you feel sexual orientation should be included in Montana’s anti-discrimination laws. I answered, yes.

    Those are the facts.

    Additionally, I venture to predict that the Montana Supreme Court will rule in my favor. Their cases on equal protection are liberal and inclusive. Justice Nelson has set a strong foundation for my position becoming the supreme law of Montana.

    In that event, I doubt anyone would accuse our high court of being homophobic because they believe equal protection means just that: equal protection.

    • You effectively argued that since Homosexual people cannot be charged under the law for assault, then your client – a heterosexual person – could be. Congratulations, Tim. You successfully argued that heterosexual assault on a partner is not a legal crime. I am sure the victim of your client is thrilled that the abuse she suffered was deamed not a crime. Pat yourself on the back for such a creative and wonderful job screwing over yet another victim of abuse.

      You can philosophise this all you want. I find it disgusting, and further, I find that your protestations of your personal ideals being somehow sacrosect above the morals you display in your legal practice to be bullshit. I get the whole “aggressively defense” idea of law (there is a reason I chose not to be a lawyer). I simply don’t get how you could make that argument in court and then expect us to believe you are somehow better than that in your wish to represent us. You are obviously a person comfortable playing the game. I would posit that the reason things are so bad is that politics are filled with people who play the game too much.

    • I agree. Plus, this guy is not just arguing this in court, its on his OFFICIAL CANDIDATE WEBSITE.

  16. I am very proud to uphold Montana’s Constitution–for everyone.

    Montana’s Constitution does not protect just the innocent. It protects everyone, all of whom are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I believe in due process, equal protection, and protecting people from unconstitutional laws. So do the people of Montana as they have instituted these principles in our Constitution. And so does the Montana Supreme Court.

    • earth haters like Baldwin spew fealty to a constitution except for medical cannabis patients.

    • Tim, have you ever heard the “Law of Unintended Consequences”? The one good thing to come out of your legal trickery is that you have opened the door to a constitutional challenge of the the Marraige Amendment. In fact, you have opened a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. I guess the GBLT community should be thanking you.

      • Ken, when it goes to the MT S CT, they will likely offer the rationale (in part) regarding the marriage issue. In fact, they already did in one of the cases I used in my brief. It will certainly come up again when my cases reaches our Supreme Court.

        Undoubtedly, there will be an attorney who will my case regarding the marriage issue. I knew that when I filed this motion. I am not afraid of the discussion.

        It is good to see that you put some additional thought into that case, and the legal position I argued.

        • The American Civil Liberties Union and six of fourteen Montana couples have been litigating Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana since last July in the wake of Montana’s adoption of the Bush-era Defense of Marriage Act.

          Many Democrats, including this interested party, are deeply troubled by statements our party’s nominee for governor of Montana.

          His choices to turn away from one voter-initiated law and embrace another more suited to his election chances seem to signify an ethical lapse where some feigned moral high ground trumps civil liberties.

          In defiance of federal law, Montana voters passed an initiated change to the state’s constitution in 2004 that legalized the cultivation, distribution, and medical use of cannabis. Last year, that state’s earth hater legislature gutted most of the law and Governor Schweitzer allowed the changes without signing the bill.

          Now the legal cannabis industry is all but dead in Montana after raids on dispensaries and arrests of growers. One courageous former caregiver, Montana Cannabis, is appealing a lower court decision upholding the federal prohibition of the herb.

          New Mexico, on the other hand, has been virtually free from federal crackdowns. Considered the most restrictive medical cannabis law in the US, that state currently issues 21 permits per 100,000. New Mexico’s earth hater governor recently signed additional coverage for cannabis patients. The law was hammered out in legislative committee instead of being codified by the passing of a voter-written initiative.

          It has been fascinating watching the fascist right haranguing the President for what it calls his “regulatory tyranny stifling economic growth” while selectively ignoring the Obama administration erasing a promising industry and effectively chilling civil liberties.

          Dinosaur fossils inspired the creators of Revelations, according to an author interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air.

          Montana is bracing for civil unrest: christian/anarchist militias armed for the End Days are rattling online newspaper fora and blogs with vitriol for people of color. How these bozos expect to take on ATF, FBI, and Homeland Security is the height of ignorance. Think Katrina: if civil order is temporarily suspended these idiots will kill only those innocents by whom they feel threatened. Unarmed people would be preyed upon by these monsters unrelentingly.

          Threats have been and are being intercepted by state public safety officials generated by the propaganda of guys just like Tim Baldwin.

        • Getting out from under the family name you have Tim, is gonna be a hard row. There is a lot of hateful content and action by you father. But I admire the fact that you are/will continually try and be outside that person, to discuss the issues, without name calling.

          I admire your tenacity. I agree with a “few” of your tenets, which is a good start to any meaningful conversation…. I wish no man ill, and you have proven yourself time after time here against some pretty rapid partisan remarks( including Mine) from my side to be a patient guy.

          As a democrat, who believes in the political or social equality of all people, I think there is promise in knowing more about you, and you, me.

          I think we can find common ground through better understanding, I believe we can breakdown a lot of misunderstanding through better education and open conversation!

          • Norma, I understand your sentiment. People who know me know me to be the person you described–some of them are readers and bloggers on this site and are self-described liberals or progressives. I have had many wonderful conversations with them. More than that, we have become friends.

            You hit it: better education and conversation are essential to knowing-each other and issues. Feel free to ask any questions. I will continue being myself.

    • I remember when it was considered unethical for lawyers to advertise, but then how many lawyers are ethical? They make the laws, they break the laws and then get to interpret the laws.

  17. Someone asked me if I’d seen the Cowgirl blog about this issue. My response was that I generally avoid the overly partisan sites that seem to exist only to preach to their choir.

    I see a lot of comments that lack basic intellectual honesty and rely on petty name-calling, as we see in this discussion with the use of “idiot,” “nut” and “fool.” OK if that’s the best you can bring, but I don’t think it puts the so-called “progressive” community in a good light.

    I am a frequent target of the far right in the Flathead because I’ve stood up to these people many times. I’ve had one death threat and lots of hate mail. I am a former candidate for state office as a Democrat and former county party chair.

    I’m also a journalist who writes about politics and other issues for national and international publications that reach far more people than will ever see Cowgirl (Google if you please). Being a journalist, I only go with what I can prove is a fact and leave the name-calling to the childish.

    It probably feels good to bash someone like Tim Baldwin. After all, his father is a nutty preacher. I get it.

    At the same time, Flathead County has used taxpayer dollars, facilities and personnel to promote and stage something called “Spirit Fest” at the county fair. It appears to have been a clear violation of church and state, and I see none of you weighing in. This is a serious issue, and if the county is allowed to get away with it, it will only continue next year. Where’s the outrage about that?

    • Mark you have some more information on this “Spirit Fair?” Im sorry but I never caught that story. Any links would be appreciated!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 26, 2012 4:47 PM at 4:47 PM |

      “I see a lot of comments that lack basic intellectual honesty and rely on petty name-calling, as we see in this discussion with the use of “idiot,” “nut” and “fool.” OK if that’s the best you can bring, but I don’t think it puts the so-called “progressive” community in a good light”

      ASSHOLE ALERT! Geez, marky, can we just give you a medal and be DONE with it? bwhahahah Hey, loser, SOME of us do NOT feel the need to pass your lefty purity test, dude. I’m not impressed. But for the record, please list your record of activism here in Montana since you’ve arrived. I’m quite SURE that you’ve been here all of five years, right? Somewhere in Wisconsin a village is missing an idiot! It’s good to be a yuppy!

      • Larry, the “Environmental Ranger,” provides good reasons why these kind of sites are mostly for the lame of mind. That’s why I will just respond to his misinformation and drop it. Happy to say that my family has been in Montana since the 1920s. I have 63 years on the ground here. Maybe Larry has more, but, you know what? The guy who arrived from Wisconsin five years ago has just as many rights.

        Activism: Those who know me know the record.

        Larry’s use of profanity exposes him as evidently being unable to put together a cogent sentence without tossing insults. Again, that’s why these sites are a mixed blessing. It would be nice to just exchange views without all the insults.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 26, 2012 5:59 PM at 5:59 PM |

          Um, marky, you worked for the washington times, dude! Again, answer the question. WHY? That is the most bizarro, nazi newspaper in the country! Run by The Most Holy Revrearend and earthly GOD, Moon! WHY? What was the attraction? Didn’t have enough intelligence to get on with the Post????

          Did the Revrearend Moon arrange a marriage for YOU too?? Do you believe that Moon is a god?? Why?

          p.s. I just like profantity. Is that so wrong? HEY, it’s life, dude.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 26, 2012 6:03 PM at 6:03 PM |

            mark’s boss, the Most Holy Revreared Sun Myung MOON! Of Moonie fame? And rightwing bizarro nutjob extraordinaire! Oh, and did I mention the reincarnation of JAYSUS christ! Yes, he’s that too. And marky WORKED for this dude? And now claims to be a lefty! Hmmm. Kinda strange, no?


          • One more, Larry. I can’t resist.

            No, I don’t believe Moon is God. I don’t believe anyone is.

            And, I didn’t “work” for the Times, as you state. You don’t know how the journalist world works. I was a contributor to its scholarly monthly magazine, The World & I, which was a book-size 700 pages writen by experts in various fields and sold on newsstands for $10.

            The Post: I never tried applied for work there, although I was quoted on at least one one occasion in a feature article on urban Hispanic issues.

            I think my only actual report for the Times, the daily newspaper, was on the arms race between Chile and Peru. And, you know what? They were actually interested in this kind of story, which was to their credit. They produced their share of solid journalism.

            Larry, have a great Montana evening!

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 26, 2012 6:19 PM at 6:19 PM |

              Ah yes, Chile y Peru!

              Ni grande ni pequeno, Arequipeno, verdad?


              Wow. And what an arms race it was I’m sure!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 26, 2012 5:18 PM at 5:18 PM |

        What the Faaaaaaaaa????

        marky was a “jounalist” for the washington times?????………BWWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAA!

        You mean the Most Holy Revrearend Sun Myun MOON’S Times?? Are you a Mooney, marky? Sell a lotta flowers do ya, dude?

        Too much. Hey, marky, you bony feeds are truly lacking, dude, to be spouting.

        Although I do like your salsa band work.

        • No, I never sold any flowers, nor am I a member of that church, if you can call it that. Writing for the Washington Times was interesting, and, in fact, I was never edited to remove anything that might have been critical of them, so that’s to their credit.

          But, you missed a few other outlets, such as The Times of the Americas, a newspaper that started in Cuba in the 1950s; Caribbean Week, a regional newspaper in the English-speaking Caribbean; AMERICAS, the official journal of the Organization of American States, in which my reports were translated into Spanish and French; and many, many others, including several language editions of Reader’s Digest. It’s been an interesting ride with a lot of great experiences.

          Again, we can all thank Larry for his unintened humor. On a slow Sunday, he’s provided a few needed laughs.

  18. Norma, it is one of those issues that has been out there for anyone to see. I can only believe that it’s because these type of events have become so common that most people don’t see them in light of what they appear to be, a constitutional violation. I’ve contacted both the MHRN and the Montana ACLU, and perhaps they can put some heat on the county. Here’s a brief summary of what I’ve shared with those organizations:

    The “Spirit Fest” event was actually a fair-scantioned evening performance in the grandstands — it was part of the official summer program for the week long fair. Naturally, it was open to all (the “Praise Pit” tickets were $27), but why in the world would Jewish, Native American and other faith communities attend something with a “born again” theme? It’s an affront to them.

    Kalispell Toyota was the corporate sponsor, but that usually means is that they covered the overhead of what the event cost. The fact is that it was part of a planned county event, using county property and personnel in the process. There are examples of a private group renting out the fairgrounds for a gun/car/boat sale or event of some kind, but that’s not the case here. It was part of the county’s planned schedule for fair “entertainment” for the summer fair. Here’s the release (as you can see, it’s part of the official line-up, right along with the usual country act):

    Summer fair adds Spirit Fest event
    Concert tickets go on sale Thursday, May 3

    Daily Inter Lake

    This summer’s Northwest Montana Fair & Rodeo will feature live performances by acclaimed Christian singer and songwriter Steven Curtis Chapman on Tuesday, Aug. 14 and country music star Rodney Atkins on Wednesday, Aug. 15.

    Concert tickets will be available beginning at 8 a.m. on May 3 at the fairgrounds office in Kalispell or online at http://www.nwmtfair.com. Both shows are sponsored by Kalispell Toyota.

    Chapman will headline the fair’s first-ever Spirit Fest, which also will include guest speakers and musical performances by local artists Hymn Folks, Izzi Ray, and the Fresh Life Church Band.

    “Spirit Fest is a new type of event for us to produce,” Fairgrounds Manager Mark Campbell said. “We want to share more music and more experience with our customers. The Christian music genre is very diverse, and there is so much great talent in this region. Spirit Fest’s four-hour format will showcase a much wider range of choices, and we hope appeal to more of the audience.”

    Spirit Fest’s reserved tickets, which include access to the Praise Pit, cost $27, and general admission tickets cost $22.

    No constitutional violation here? I think not.

    • Mark, I have no issue whatsoever with a Christian gathering at the fair – even if it was sponsored or planned by the county. What I would have an issue with is if the country refused a Native American gathering (or a Jewish Gathering, a Pagan gathering etc). There is nothing wrong (in my opinion) of allowing a religious group access to public venues as long as it is done fairly and the public agency isn’t advocating a specific religion for it’s constituancy.

      Fact is, most of Montana is Christian of one flavor or another. It is the most widespread of the religions in the US. I have nothing against Christians as long as they don’t try to undermine my own faith or spiritual beliefs. In fact, I believe that faith (whatever your belief system) is a powerful and necessary part of anyone’s life. It gives you direction, motivation and compassion (at least it should…). Mine certainly does.

      I see the Spirit Fest in pretty much the same light as any other religious group celebrating. As such, I see no real problem with it.

    • Mark is right: there was not enough distance between church and state at the fair. One might be able to defend a concert of Christian music as music, but the presence of the Praise Pit was a state sanctioned exercise of religion, and faintly reminiscent of the Pentecostal practice known as holy rollin’.


      • And how is this different than the various Powwow’s done across the state on state land, with state sanctions?

        • Kenneth, there’s a significant difference. The county fairgrounds are rented out all the time for events such as gun shows, car and boat sales, the Shriners Circus, and probably even religious events, such as tent revivals. These would be similar in use of public property to your Pow Wow analogy, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Actually, it benefits the public because they are making some money when the facility would be just sitting there.

          The difference here is that the Northwest Montana Fair is an annual, week long event planned for and administered by county employees. They used to have two nights of country music. Now it’s one night of country and an expanded, four hour program called “Spirit Fest” featuring evangelical messages and music.

          It’s not that we have a shortage of churches in the Flathead. There are plenty of places to do that kind of event. The question is: Is it a violation of the constitution when taxpayer funded human, financial and physical resources are used to promote and stage such an event? I’m looking at it purely from the standpoint of legality, and to me it raises a red flag. It doesn’t seem appropriate for the county to be directly involved in this.

          • Again, how is that different than a two week long powwow planned for and administered by County Employees? See, I am not seeing the Constitutional or the Legal issue here…

            Understand that I am Native and follow that spiritual belief. I simply do not buy into the hate against Christians any more than I buy into the hate from Christians. If this event makes the county money (as any other event does) and the county itself isn’t forcing people to pay for the event (in other words, attendance is voluntary), I don’t see a legal issue. What legal issue are you suggesting is the problem?

            • Native! WHF! What is that 1/200 of you! Hell you are whiter then I Am bud!

              • This is exactly why I wont be answering questions of you and your brother anymore. Just putting up snarks!

                • I would be happy to hear you explain to me in person on Wend at the Bullock Ice Cream Social how you aquired this new talent of being able to determine someone’s racial background by looking at them. It should be amusing to say the least.

                • Norma Huffy, there is a not so very line line between snark and just being an asshole. You crossed that sometime back. Kenneth didn’t ask you anything. He was responding in a discussion with someone else, but you went out of your way to insult his beliefs and identity. That’s pretty much indicative of being an asshole, and only a skip away from being racist. You might as well join Bill O’Lielly, Megan Kelly and all those rational post-racialists who think they get to define a person’s racial identity, just as they did with the President of the United States.

                  You could learn a great deal from Candidate Tim Baldwin. Though he takes back-handed jabs at his detractors, he goes out of his way to be polite to potential voters and supporters. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to offend independent voters who are the only path you have to victory in an overwhelmingly Republicant county. No offense meant, but I would really like to know how you think that strategy will work for you. Never mind. I already know that when it doesn’t, you will use that and sexism as an excuse to absolve yourself of really awful behavior as a candidate. My opinion, of course, but since you could have been a good candidate with the right ideals and attraction I find it sad that you are such an idiot about actually running for office.

                  My brother has a kind of a squatish nose, olive skin (tanned in the winter, the ass), thick lips, chocolate brown eyes and severely squared shoulders. You, on the other hand, at your fine website (Fuck off and get a life), have a picture where you look like a fine robust Aryan woman. Feel free to write about his ‘whiteness’ as if you can tell anything from looks, Nazi. One of the folks in my study group for Native American religions was a ‘Ginger’. He had orange hair, freckles and could likely get a sunburn under a full moon. He was fully half Crow; spoke the language fluently, and yes he went to university on the federal dime. He hated growing up in Hardin because he was rejected by his own people, but he kinda liked being a stealth ‘white man’. Now tell me, Norma Huffy, if you saw some redneck like myself dissing him for claiming native heritage, would you call out the bullies, or talk shit about his looks not being Native enough for you? I think you just answered that question, and not in a way that favors you.

              • Norma… your racism is showing.

                • Save it Kenneth for someone who cares.

                  My Kids are all half white just like Obama. All college graduates, One in the military right now fighting so you can continue to open your mouth and make an ass of yourself, without including any facts.

                  My daughter runs (as in the boss) of the disaster services in Los Angeles, and my youngest is working in solar energy now.

                  I’m only against self serving jerks…. like you! If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

                  • So it is the fact that you have interracial children which gives you this superpower of being able to determine someone’s race at a glance. Why didn’t I think of that?

                    While I am sure you are proud of your interracial children and touting their accomplishments is the national pasttime for parents, it only demonstrates my point, Norma. Like your children, I share an interracial background. Hell, most Americans do. I simply chose to embrace my Native background in my late teens and early twenties. Would you make fun of one of your children if they chose to embrace their African American background? This is what makes you racist, Norma – your insistance that you can determine how a person decides to live their life or what racial background a person can decide to live thier life by. Luckily for us, you don’t get to choose. You only make yourself look the idiot by making statements like that. I get that you don’t like me. I really do. The feeling is mutual. That doesn’t give you the right to make fun of my racial heritage. That is what makes you racist.

                    • I have to say I’m with Kenneth on this one. This man’s views are not just a court argument, but posted on the front page of his candidate website, and his other views make him out of touch with Montana, especially a moderately democratic district like Whitefish.

                    • Winona LaDuke is urging American Indians to stop serving in the US military.


                    • Interesting article, Larry. I have actually read a couple of her other books and while I found them somewhat idealistic about Native culture (what I like to call the “Dances with Wolves” syndrom), she make a number of very important points.

                      Understand that I came to the decision to research and later to embrace my Native past while serving in the Military. I had many Native friends there and after overcoming the “Apple” attitude – primarily by learning the language – I was able to learn a great deal.

                      I can even conceed many of the author’s points about the disportionate service record of Native people and the subsequent alienation from traditional native culture due to service in the Military. The Service is truly a melting pot of cultures. I would probably disagree with some of her conclusions but I would have to actual read the book in question to get her take on it. Thanks for the heads up on the book.

                  • Let me get this straight. A guy who has nothing to gain from the discussion and is addressing the relevant points made is being a “self-serving jerk”, right? But a political candidate in effort to demean and insult one her own potential constituents wags her tongue lyrical about the awesome achievements … of her kids. Yes, Norma, one of you is being self-serving; just not the one you think.

            • Kenneth, I think we are getting on the wrong track. There’s no hatred of Christians or anyone else on my part. I have a simple question as it relates to government using taxpayer resources to promote and stage a religious event. There are plenty of places for that activity to take place, such as churches, without the involvement of government. It essentially is government promoting a religion. It probably is a violation of the constitution. If you don’t see it that way, fine. I’m raising it because it appears to be a violation of the law and not because I have any hatred for anyone.

              • It is easy to say it is a violation of the Constitution. The tea party idiots do it all the time. What is hard, though, is actually explaining HOW it is a violation of the Constitution. You came here and made rather pointed statements about this event but when asked to explain what the issue is, you can’t. This is the kind of extremism that seems to cloud every issue being discussed anymore.

                I have studied the law (and chosen not to practice it – but that is another story altogether). I do not see the Constitutional or legal violation here. All I am asking is for you to explain how this event violates either Montana Law or Constitutional Law. If you are going to make the accusation, you should at least be able to explain what the violation is you think has occured.

                Norma, you are an idiot. Besides the fact that I have every major racial indicator of Native Ancestory, your statement is a clear indication of serious racism. You know nothing about my racial background. Your statement is insulting and, without a doubt, racist.

                • Kenneth, I’ve explained it over and over. It’s quite simple; it’s called the “separation of church and state.” In this case, the church and state have been combined into one. No more complicated than that.

                  • Mark, I am quite aware of the “Seperation of Church and State” (a phrase that doesn’t appear in the Constitution, BTW) and how that has been interpretted by the Supreme Court and it is much more complicated than that. If you are claiming that the First Amendment of the Constitution is the justification for your manufactured outrage, then I say to you “You have no case”. There is nothing in the first Amendment which prevents an agency from allowing the use of public resources (the fair) for a religious gathering – especially if they are paying for the use of those resources. I posit again that you are bashing the event simply because it is Christian. If this event was Native themed, you wouldn’t be trying to manufacture outrage over this at this site.

                    Norma’s support for your manufactured outrage should be a hint and a half that you are barking up the wrong tree.

                    • Hi Kenneth. I don’t think there’s anything in my tone to suggest “outrage,” manufactured or otherwise. I’m just a citizen observer who sees something and has a question about whether or not it is appropriate. That’s it. If that’s how you want your tax dollars to be spent, OK. I’m not sure it’s appropriate. But, outraged? That’s too strong of a word by far for this situation.

                • “I have studied the law (and chosen not to practice it – but that is another story altogether).”

                  Do you have a J.D. from an accredited school of law? Which bar exams have you passed?

                  • Actually, James, I did not complete Law School because I realised that Law and Justice were not the same things. I completed two years of Law School and left during my third year. I attended the Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon. I was far too ideological to be a lawyer. Instead, I chose to go into Law Enforcement.

                  • All of which is acedemic to the discussion. No one (not Mark or Norma) have explained why the event in question is “unconstitutional” or against the law. Given that they are the ones generating the accusation of impropriety, they have the onus to explain why it is improper for this event to occur. Your questions for me are misdirection.

                    I have no idea what Mark’s background is in law but Norma claims to have an extensive legal background. I notice you are asking what her qualifications are. I would posit that you are hardly objective given that fact. Why you are attempting to discredit me begs the question what your opinion is on this event….

                    • You are being defensive again (my opinion). I didn’t read James comment as being one to discredit, but rather one to clarify authority of opinion.

                    • If so, James, I apologize. I am somewhat defensive in this conversation given Norma’s comments. I did not expect such racism born of her anger at myself and my brother.

                      As far as “authority of opinion”, I never attempted to establish such. I just stated that I had studied law and could not find any illegal or unconstitutional activity in the event described. In fact, I specifically asked for clarification – in Norma’s case, from someone that has repeatedly claimed extensive knowledge and experience in the law.

                    • Kenneth, one more time, although I don’t think any of this reasoning is working with you. It seems like the “Spirit Fest” and “Praise Pit” features of the recent NW MT Fair falls in the category of proselytization. This is generally prohibited in the workplace. If you were pulled over by a police officer, and “Jesus Saves” was printed on the patrol car, or the officer handed you a Bible along with your speeding ticket, wouldn’t you think that someone had gone too far? In your case, maybe not. But many would be asking, “What’s up? Why is the government, using, in part, my tax dollars, involved in proselytization. Is that OK? Not being a constitutional scholar or an attorney, I can only go with what my gut says, and in this case, it says something is rotten in Denmark. I’m not outraged — in the Flathead, the bar to be outraged has been set really, really high — nor am I barking up a tree. This is what used to be called a “common sense” perspective on a local issue.

                    • I respect that you have an opinion, I simply disagree with it. You have stated that you are neither a constitutional scholar or an attorney and have made it clear that your reaction is a gut reaction. I can live with that. We just happen to disagree.

                      The key difference between your examples (the police car and bible) do not equate to the situation. A police officer forcing his religious beliefs on you – as a public servant – would definitely cross the line of the first amendment as I understand it. I simply do not see a voluntary event held at public venue as being the same thing. If someone could explain the actual legal problem here, I would be more than happy to listen. Until that time, I will keep my opinion – based on my understanding of both the constitution and the law. It wouldn’t be an event I would attend given my spiritual beliefs, but I would not begrudge those interesting in attending exercising their spiritual beliefs.

                    • One further thing, Mark… the fact that I disagree with you doesn’t mean that I am not listening (reading) what you have to say. One of the lovely things about this country I like is that I am allowed to have a differing opinion. You may feel it is your job to “change my mind” but you cannot force me to agree with you. My disagreeing with you doesn’t mean that I am incapable of reasoning or that I am in anyway dismissing you. If I was dismissing you, I would simply stop replying to you. In fact, I think I have made it clear that I am reading what you have written and I have responded reasonably to what you have said. The only person in this discussion I have been unreasonable with is James and I apologized to him. Please do not take the Norma route and decide that someone disagreeing with you must be “stupid”, “self centered” or “evil”.

                    • Just apply these three simple questions to the event and you too can be a supreme court justice. First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion

                    • Unfortunately, those three questions do not apply to the situation. There is no statute or policy under question. The only question that “might” apply is the third – the excessive entanglement and this is where I fail to see an issue with the event. The organization running the event paid a fee to hold the event at the fair. This is a business transaction like any other. There is no “excessive entanglement” between government and religion that I can see from any of the information forwarded about this event. I have done a search on the event in question and the only thing I could find indicated that the event was corporate sponsored and no different than any other event held at the fairgrounds. Even the advertisement posted by Mark indicated that this was a business transaction – “Fairgrounds Manager Mark Campbell said. “We want to share more music and more experience with our customers.” – and as such, I don’t see the violation. Is there some ordinance in the area that prohibits religious based events from occuring at the Fairgrounds? Is there some Montana Code I am unfamiliar with that prohibits the Fairgrounds from engaging events like this (if that is the case, Flathead County isn’t the only county to be guilty of that particular violation).

                      See, I just don’t get the problem. If you have a problem with a Christian event being held at the fairgrounds… DON’T ATTEND. If you think the fairgrounds shouldn’t hold religious based events, work within your local government to pass an ordinance prohibiting them (though any such ordinance would have prohibit ALL spiritual based events, not just Christian ones or it would fail the above three questions).

                    • Rob is correct. I was simply trying to clarify the extent which Kenneth can claim a formal, authoritative knowledge of the law. “I studied the law” covers everything to a one-semester community college course in legal citations to a post-JD fellowship at a great university.

                      Lewis and Clark is a pretty good school. I used to attend public lectures there when I lived in Portland.

                    • I loved the school and there are times when I wish I had finished. I still miss many of my instructors there. Hell, even the location of the school was breathtaking. Reed College was fun too. I took physics and criminology courses there, though I was never a full time student there.

                    • I certainly don’t claim to be an expert in the law. I have a basic understanding in how it is suppose to work and working understanding how it works in reality (the two are obviously not the same). That said, given my background, I am having a hard time justifying a negative position on this event. To date, no one has given me a reasonable argument counter to my understanding.

                    • I worked 5 years as a research assistant for Attorney Richard Williams law firm. Santa Rosa California.

                      Property law, Divorce law, criminal, DUI, Death Penalty. Homocide, Murder, federal busts of clients with cocaine, weed, distribution etc.

                      5 years Research, and case load preparer for Attorney Elaine Wallace Federal Civil rights Lawyer.

                      Elaine is Responsible for creating the “Reasonable Person” standard now used in all Civil rights cases. Ellison V Brady// Fuller Vrs City of Oakland// Cynthia Stoller Vrs Runyan. Two of those cases were decided in US Supreme Court! Yea we won

                      Elaine Wallace is also Responsible for the establishment of Legal tests now applied involving sexual harassment in all cases regarding women in Harassment and Civil Rights Cases in America Also. Shes the lady attorney who broke the legal glass ceiling for all women in court now!

                      She is also Responsible for changing the Federal Laws, regarding Tolling. See Cynthia Stoll vrs Runyan. Where a woman civilian worker was repeatedly raped and beaten by male co workers.

                      Elaine continually won cases, against the federal government so often, with just herself and three helpers, me being one of them…The US attorney’s office opened up an extra office in San Francisco of 12 Lawyers just to rebutt her clients cases… yea we keep winning.

                      I was proud to learn from her, as well as Richard Williams firm, which at one time had Peter Goldbeck(Famous Criminal Defense Attorney) Jamie Thislewaite (Criminal Defense Attorney)now running for State Judge this election, Christine Dubouis (DUI,Criminal Defense Attorney), Attorney Peter Bumerts Death Penalty cases…..

                      I was also considered the only licensee for two years that was allowed to represent other licensees in Administrative hearings at the California Horse Racing Board, and never lost a case out of the many I handled. They ran the gauntlet from Property Damage to Gun charges for my clients. So yes I know a little something about law!

                      I charged my clients nothing! Doing it, because a lot of very good people who were attorneys, helped me understand what laws are about, and why it so important we have just laws.

                      The problem with you kind of thinking Kenny is the same as any other person who has no legal law experience. You don’t know the difference from Hollywood law movies and reality in the court systems of today.

                      Just because you were in a couple of cases as the accused makes you no expert!

                      An Attorneys job is to make a plaintiff whole, if he was unjustly served, in injury, or sentence.

                      Obviously in injury you cannot replace a limb, or a life but you can help a person throughout the rest of his life, with a stipend of some kind that helps him acquire a prosthetic and training, feed his family…. or you can hit a company in its pocketbook so they make the necessary changes to make work safe for Other people after injury….

                      Not all case law grown organically from a simple law works to protect all, or justly punish them. What Tim Did, gives us all a chance to make the sentencing fairer.

                      But your Pumping to much guff to see it. Whenever your brother and you run across a strong willed woman who wont take your BS….. you go nuts. And that isn’t on me, its all on you!

                      Please get a life and take it elsewhere!

                    • Norma, are you claiming that I have been in multiple legal cases as the accused? You do realise that to make that claim without the ability to substanciate it is against the law.. of course you do, you are a legal expert (with no legitimate legal training..)

                      As far as you being a woman (and I use that term loosely), I could give a damn what your gender is. I am married to a woman far more strong willed than you ever will be – as is my brother. I do not see you as strong willed, I see you as weak, impressionable, dishonest and, quite frankly, unstable.

                    • I haven’t said anything you havent said on this blog yourself or on your own Blog Kenneth. Keep trying!

                    • I clicked on this thinking it would be a discussion about Tim Baldwin’s beliefs, but I see it is some kind of personal war about blogging, bummer.

    • I agree with you Mark I think it is wrong for a country fair( Government entity) to allow sponsorship of without a competing view of religion. This is no where the same… say as a mall( a private entity)Having a Christmas fest. I’ll write a few letters myself. Thanks for the heads up!

      • Hi Norma.

        I think any letters would be best directed at the Montana ACLU and the Human Rights Network so they can do the lifting. Here in Flathead, basically, hardly anyone thinks this is a problem. Thanks for your interest in this.

      • Norma, I will ask you the same question I asked Mark.. what legal issue do see this as being? You claim a great deal of experience with the law – please enlighten us…

        • As expected, you chose to insult me (claiming some kind of super power allowing you to determine someone’s racial background without a shred of information) instead of answering the damn question. You are a disgrace as a person and as a candidate and I will happily celebrate your loss in November.

  19. Like I said before, this state has little if any civil rights law on the books. There is also little enforcement law or training funding for Law enforcement on the Books…. so we are continually trying to prosecute certain Lawbreaking people under undeveloped or Organically grown case by case law. Not a good Idea!

    Fixing these kind of laws is a daunting, boring move forward with No Media coverage.

    Bad Politicians wont work on civil rights stuff unless they get news coverage these days. A good sized portion of the current Legislature wouldn’t have known how to help, because they lack critical thinking.

    Honestly folks, do you think Birth-er BOB, or Derek Skees could have actually helped in civil rights for Montana.

    I actually can see Tim’s point in this argument. and the law as it stands doesn’t protect Homosexual or Heterosexual victims very well.

    Montana’s Law; some of the mechanisms of state law; just aren’t there yet. We are a young state, in some cases a hundred years younger. I don’t blame us for not having a big law book, but I do blame us for prosecuting folks on laws that are inadequate, jimmy-rigging a very basic state law to work; or clearly not deferring to federal law, when we have no proper state law to prosecute.

    We dont need A Pretoria of new law on the books, just updated procedures that clearly Point to where we will find proper law. If you want to stay with what is federal, it is the sign posts in current Montana Law, we are lacking now.

    If you indeed want the state to carry more weight within its borders, Legislature gonna have to write better law, that complements or is better written and taylored to the state, then what the federal government gives us.

    Its just that simple an explanation, Opposed to all the hard work and implementation to get there.

    Were gonna need smarter people; we vote in, to get us those better results, on both sides of the Isle…. and yes the republicans are truly behind in Quality leaders for this. They are gonna have to stop picking those Tea party nutcases to get the job done.

  20. Featured in an intelligence report? You’ve got to be shitting me!

  21. I dare say we won’t likely get “smarter people” until we become smarter voters, and we are not likely to become smarter voters if we are continually allowed to be bombarded with every misleading, unsubstantiated, drivel that unregulated money can pay for.

  22. Good job Tim!

    Judge rules domestic violence law discriminatory


    Now lets get this law strengthened so all kind of Sexual partners who do damage to their spouse. get equal treatment by the Law!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 26, 2012 10:29 PM at 10:29 PM |

      My question is who in the hell would even dream UP such a defense?!


    • What utterly amazes me, Norma, is that you see this as a victory. At this point in time, if a someone decides to abuse their heterosexual spouse, they can get away with it because some moron decided to add the line that a partner had to be someone of the opposite sex. This is NOT a victory, it is a travesty. Am I the only one that sees this?

      Tim Baldwin used this argument to get someone off that had (presumably) abused thier partner. It is just that simple. Do you honestly believe that Tim Baldwin gives a damn about the partners in a non heterosexual relationship? Given everything he has written on his website and the crap he has been involved in with his father, I don’t think it is a stretch to claim that Tim is a homophobe. He doesn’t give a crap about the protection of the GBLT community. What he does give a crap about though is getting off his client. The argument he made gave him that result. It is a travesty of law and there is no other way to see it.

      Would it be nice if the law did give protection to the partner in a GBLT relationship? Of course it would. The law should definitely be changed. As it stands now, though, the law that protects a partner from abuse in a tradional relationship has been declared unconstitutional, and therefore you can’t punish someone from beating the hell out of their spouse. This sickens me beyond words.

      • Look Kenny you are asking me to Kiss your supposed Bonafides( you have none), which I have no Intention of doing because no matter what I say….. according to your supposed superiority( in BS) I would be wrong.

        YOu need to finish your conversation, with a plant. Which will not argue with you and wont question the crap you spew here daily……..Just saying! It would be simpler for all involved!

        • I think I’ve heard plants be more coherent.

        • And once again, you proceed to insult me instead of answering the damn question, Norma. You are coming off as an idiot because you are acting like an idiot. You made the claim that the event was not in keeping with the Constitution. As a candidate for office and as a supposed expert in Law, I would really like to hear your justification for that statement. If you can’t justify it, you are just another blowhard (no different than the Teatards that claim they are going to “Take back the Constitution”). Moreover, as a wannabe lawmaker, your constituants have a right to know where you stand on issues of religion and religious events like this. You got yourself into this mess and all the insults you fling at me won’t change that. Back your crap up or go home miss legal expert.

        • So that brings me to….

          Candidate Duffy, you stated on these pages that you feel that the Spirit Fest event held at the Flathead Fairgrounds, sponsored by a business entity violates the law and you have gone so far as to say that you are going to take action (“write letters”) about this event. What about this event offends you? Is it that it was a Christian event? If so, can we expect you to draft legislation preventing Christian or religious groups from hiring venues like the Flathead Fairgrounds in the future? Where do you stand on this?

          Answer me here or answer me in the Dillon Tribune. I personally don’t give a damn one way or the other.

          • And your gonna do this in four hundred words or less. BWAH HAHAHAHAHA I am all for a debate in Dillon’s Paper! Bring it on!

            • Oh, it won’t be a debate, Norma. As you have already pointed out, letters to the editor are limited to 400 words or less. It will simply be a basic synopsis of the discussion and a number of questions. Of course, if I really wanted to expound on your hypocrisy, I would use the Dillonite Daily. I am sure they would be more than happy to see a heated debate – especially if a Democratic Candidate was involved. Sadly, I won’t stoop to that level.

              I think it is the right (nay the responcibility) of an informed constituancy to ask questions of those who claim they want to represent them. Religion is a big issue in this area and I would love to see how you explain your position on hiring out public venues like the Fair Grounds to religious groups – especially Christian Religious groups.

              Consider this, Challenge Accepted. I will draft the letter tonight or tomorrow (if I can get it done before Britt gets home from her fire assignment).

            • Ohhh, Norma gets to call the shots when she disses bloggers. Good luck controlling that, cupcake.

              • Really you guys Blog so infrequently who would notice! Thats why you have to come here to argue, no one goes to your sites.

                • What I’ve tried to get a across to you is this: You blog too much (also at other people’s websites, I notice.) You write things no thoughtful wannabe politician should ever write. As a student of political philosophy and blog addict, I find that fascinating. I’ve never seen anything like it.

                  You and Kenneth were agreeing, but you were so angry that you just created disagreement out of thin air. If this were just a ‘blog-spat’ as Jennifer Davies suggests above, then, hell, we’ve all seen it. (I would hope you followed today’s Twitter doings between Shoq and Angry Black Lady.) People get pissed off at ‘friendlies’ online all the time. But I’ve never ever seen it happen to a political candidate, such that it becomes a juvenile tit-for-tat over issues you agree with your ‘opponents’ on. As I’ve said, it’s fascinating.

                  Do keep it up.

    • Personally, I don’t relish cheering someone for getting a wife beater off the hook–especially since we all know he’s only doing it to challenge the 14th amendment in court so that he can be against the Civil Rights Act etc, and get famous on Fox News. Gag.

  23. I dont know how to explain this, but at times, there are several silver linings that can be found at deconstructing Law for a viable answer that works for all.
    Thomas Paine probably said it best:

    “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

    We have to be better then just for ourselves my friend. We have to make it so even our opposition has reason to approve.

  24. And I am not arguing about the article you posted Larry, it is correct. We were spineless in moving the south forward when we had the chance.

    I am talking about Tim’s work as a lawyer on this recent case.

    We do have a chance to change past discretion’s on both sides. I have at least the guts to try…. for both sides of the isle.

  25. Obama Up Four in Swing States: #Obama: 48%, #Romney: 44% Scott Rasmussen ‏@RasmussenPoll.

  26. Tim Tim Baldwin is back and I wasn’t informed? Tim the last time you were here you left when I asked you to answer these questions? Can you please answer them so we Montana citizens can fairly evaluate your candidacy?

    Jack Ruby

    June 18, 2012 at 9:37 am · Reply

    Tim you wrote a 1000 word essay but you still didn’t meaningfully reply to the point I made about you and the commerce clause. Maybe you are just ignoring me, which would be fine, but I think you are intentionally not answering it because you know what it reveals about you. I’ll ask it again in a different way and split it up for you. Maybe you can try responding to it.

    Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be unconstitutional under your interpretation of the commerce clause?

    Do you personally think it is unconstitutional?

    Should the Southern states have had their laws left in place which allowed segregation and discrimination in public businesses?

    Do you think a business should have the right to serve only white customers?

    Do you think if a state legislature decides that businesses should be able to serve only white customers that such a decision should be the state’s to make?

    Do you realize when you give interviews to and are a frequent guest of alex jones and prisonplanet.com you will be viewed a wack job loon?


    • I doubt this loon will respond, this kind of cowed usually hides his true beliefs.

      • If you are talking about Tim, he has actually responded multiple times to this thread (as well as a number of personal emails on facebook to me – don’t know about anyone else). While I completely disagree with him on this and find his actions reprehensible, he has never had a problem responding to people who question his actions. In this respect, Tim is unusual. I can’t speak to why he refuses to respond to Jack (though, I too, am kind of curious about how he would respond), but Tim has shown a willingness to engage over his beliefs.

    • I have much going on. I cannot monitor every person’s questions to me. I do not refuse to answer anyone’s questions. It’s a matter of time. Also, you can easily find me on facebook and chat with me. However, I would request that you keep your correspondence professional and respectful, just as I do for those I chat with.

      As to Jack’s questions:

      I have studied (and applied in my law practice) the numerous US S CT and federal decisions regarding the Commerce Power and its rationale regarding anti-discrimination laws in the States. Their rationale is sound.

      They largely and particularly engaged the principles of commerce as it relates to housing and employment. They showed how these two activities will substantially affect commerce and can be regulated by Congress. I agree: they do substantially affect interstate commerce and are subject to Congress’ power under the commerce clause.

      If you think I am prejudiced in any way against any minority of any sort, you are completely wrong. I do not hide my beliefs or opinions. I am very honest about them. Furthermore, I attempt to stand on sound principles of Reason.

      • You dont fool me Rin Tim Tim. So the rationale of the Court is sound in the civil rights cases according to you but not as it applies to federal drug laws.

        You are on record in your amicus brief attacking the rationale the court uses. How are you going to argue that making blacks drink at their own water fountains has enough of an effect on interstate commerce to make civil rights laws unconstitutional…..but that an individual state legalizing drugs does not?

        You claim to not be a racist but the changes in constitutional law you seek would lead to the direct result of racist laws from your home turf in the south to be constitutional again. I see right through you. You just love the opportunity the medical marijuana issue has given to attract new more liberal adherents to your “states rights” arguments, but we know what it is you are really after Tim.

      • Should be “How are you going to argue that making blacks drink at their own water fountains has enough of an effect on interstate commerce to make civil rights laws constitutional (not unconstitutional)…..but that an individual state legalizing drugs does not?”. I’ll hang up and listen to your answer Tim. Maybe you can have Alex Jones chime in too.

  27. Why are people picking on Norma? Just because we might disagree with a person is no reason to go all internet Rambo. It makes me feel bad that others are allowed to be treated this way here.

  28. Many people have political opinions and we all know what’s wrong with the world and how to fix it. We’re all smart people and know better than anyone else. It’s easy to criticize, especially from the sidelines.

    But very few people actually are willing to step up, run for political office and undertake a very physical, mental and personal challenge in an attempt to get elected to office. When someone enters the “game”, regardless of their leanings, they deserve a certain amount of respect for simply taking that risk. Agree with her or not but Norma has taken that risk and I admire her courage in doing so.

    • Same here. Thanks you for running Norma, we don’t always agree, but we mostly do and I’m thankful for your hard work and for giving people a choice in this race!

    • We’re all smart people and know better than anyone else.

      Does that statement even make sense? We’re *all* smart people and know better than *anyone* else, even though they are presumably smart people?

      Your comment, Dallas, highlights much of what’s wrong with our politics today. Neither politicians or candidates “deserve” our respect or admiration. That is what we give them as voters. They just demand it, as Norma has from the moment she took a suggestion and told a voter to “fuck off and get a life”. They owe us, not vice versa. Norma owes us. Yes, it takes a certain courage to run for office. It also takes money and time and a belief that they know better than others. Are those aspects of fortune and personality ‘respectable’? Am I to be tasked with admiring Mittens for his “courage” to run for office on our behalf? How ’bout “No”.

      Norma has the wherewithal to run for office. Bully for her. I, and actually no one else, owe her anything for doing so. She is running to serve us, not herself. So kindly clarify if you can, what do we ‘owe’ her?

      • Thank you, Rob. I as trying to figure out how to respond to this and you did so much more concisely than I could have. It is an assumed entitlement instead of the service mentality you would expect a person seeking public service to have.

  29. Thank you to the above people for your support. I knew going in as a candidate, there would be passionate people on both sides of the Isle, Who might do and say things thats off color and quite ADULT. LOL

    Doesn’t really bother me! Others, well…. I cant speak for others, even though they try to accuse me of it!

  30. The mtcowgirl.com article mentioned Doug Adams’ attack on my “morals” (as if to suggest, Adams is a credible source for judging morals).

    Here is my response to Doug Adams: http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/bigforkeagle/opinion/article_870f77e8-f206-11e1-98cb-0019bb2963f4.html

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | August 31, 2012 5:38 PM at 5:38 PM |

      Tim, I checked out your site and could find nothing about your views on the environment. Care to expound on that a bit, for it’s probably the biggest topic in Montana. What do you know about Montana’s environmental history?

Comments are closed.