Rounds’ RESPECT Act Unanimously Passes Out of Indian Affairs Committee
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, made the following statement after his Repealing Existing Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with Tribes(RESPECT) Act passed out of committee with unanimous support:
“It’s long past time to remove federal laws that are discriminatory to Native Americans from our books,” said Rounds. “While these laws are no longer enforced, they are a reminder of a painful part of our nation’s past. I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Indian Affairs for their overwhelming support of this legislation. I look forward to working across the aisle to get this bill onto the Senate floor.”
The RESPECT Act would repeal 11 outdated federal laws that are discriminatory to Native Americans. Examples include laws that allow for the forced removal of Native American children from their homes to be sent to boarding schools and laws subjecting Native Americans to forced labor.
The RESPECT Act is supported by the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association (GPTCA) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Senators Tina Smith (D-Minn.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are cosponsors of this legislation.
Yesterday, SDSU students Andrew Rasmussen and Rachel Schoon were elected to serve as Student Association Chair and Vice Chair at our state’s largest university, and it’s notable that both come from strong Republican stock. Both have served previously in the SDSU Student Senate, and have been involved in College Republicans. Both also served as Republican interns in the South Dakota Legislature. I know Andrew has also spent time working on statewide campaigns, such as for Dusty Johnson.
Congratulations to Andrew and Rachel for their victory!
A tenured professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, Thomas Simmons concentrates on trusts, estate administration, and the estate tax. Prior to joining the legal academy, he was a partner with the law firm of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP
South Dakota Senate Bill 126 criminalizes the possession of childlike sex devices – or “sexbots.” Although sexbot manufacturing is not an industry with any sort of toe-hold in the state, the bill also forbids the distribution and manufacture of childlike sexbots. And the bill casts a wider net than just child sexbots; it bans the “ordinary” non-android versions, too.
Introduced by Rapid City’s Senator Jessica Castleberry, the Act to Establish the Crime of Possession, Manufacturing, or Distribution of Obscene Dolls had remarkably smooth sailing following two amendments, passing out of both chambers’ committees and both the Senate and the House unanimously. As Senator Castleberry explains on her blog:
[C]hild sized sex dolls … can be custom created to mimic the likeness of any child. Some also come with custom settings such as “rape” or “submissive.” This bill is an important step to protecting our children from predators, and helping law enforcement to identify people involved in child pornography.
Many journalists take a tongue-in-cheek approach to reporting on sexbot legislation. Sex trafficking, the pandemic, and the opioid crisis are more pressing concerns. Sexbots aren’t victims. But they are a growing problem, especially the childlike varieties. I’ve previously called for even broader legislation to criminalize or restrict the adult sexbot models as well.
Sexbot opposition makes for strange bedfellows. Conservatives are often joined by feminists, united in averting societal decay, predatory mindsets, and licentious attitudes. Such an alliance manifested around this bill. Although there was some opposition, not a single member from either side of the aisle opposed the bill. No one raised her or his voice to claim, “You can’t legislate morality.” But don’t be surprised by a court challenge to the new law.
Safeguarding public morality has a long legislative history, stretching back many centuries. Still, some U.S. Supreme Court decisions have attacked laws grounded in “mere” morality. Justice Stevens, for example, once declared (in a dissent), that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Bowers v. Hardwick (U.S. 1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (U.S. 2003)).
As articulated in a Scalia dissent, laws approved by elected representatives modulate morality – and even restrict personal liberties – on a regular basis. Good laws are typically founded in good moral sense. And laws often constrain personal actions, such laws criminalizing beastiality. “So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery,” Scalia emphasized, in Lawrence v. Texas.
Morally-based laws are, in fact, constitutional, wrote Scalia. Some sexual morality laws single out a particular group (e.g., sexbot users) and restrain their liberties (with jail time) when those laws are infringed, even if the violation occurs in the privacy of a bedroom. Even if no victim is directly harmed.
Some laws are ill conceived. Some are paternalistic. Some are unnecessary. Some are old-fashioned. Some are ridiculous or even downright moronic. But nothing in the constitution bans “bad” laws or “ill conceived” ones, either. I am personally opposed to Daylight Savings Time. I think it’s ridiculous. But ridiculous laws are presumed to be constitutional as well.
Laws which don’t touch on fundamental rights (like religion or speech) need only be rationally related to a legitimate government end. The courts will strike down laws which fail the “rational basis” test. But only a narrow band of laws should be overturned in the courts. Voters must exercise their franchise to undo the other legislative missteps.
If one wants assurances that Senate Bill 126 will survive constitutional challenges, one can look to a case like Williams v. Pryor, decided twenty-one years ago. In Williams, a court upheld legislation prohibiting the distribution of sex toys. The court reasoned that the “crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest.”
The Williams holding – and others like it – have been eroding ever since. Indeed, the Williams case relied upon Bowers, mentioned above, in upholding Alabama’s sex toy ban. And Bowers has since been overruled. The legitimacy of morally-based laws has been constitutionally weakening in the courts. That is what Justice Scalia was dissenting from.
Still, I’m not entirely convinced that Scalia was correct to characterize morality as a legitimate government end. Recognize this: Scalia’s deferential attitude toward legislative acts does not lead to smaller government; it permits governmental expansion. It extends the potential reach of lawmakers. Scalia also opined that laws criminalizing masturbation pass constitutional muster since they too are rationally related to the aim of preserving morality.
But who defines what constitutes moral behavior? Can lawmakers pursue any end and simply label it a moral prerogative? If the answer is “no,” then by what standard will a judge decide what is moral and what is not? How will judges sort out truly moral laws from others?
Could a new legislature, after listening to the testimony of public health experts, conclude that masturbation is a virtuous practice and that anyone caught not masturbating will be charged with a misdemeanor? The very suggestion is ridiculous. But recall that ridiculousness is not a constitutional standard.
Could the government make it a crime for a citizen to fail to turn his household clocks ahead each spring? After all, punctuality is important – moral, even.
Now, this isn’t to suggest that good laws aren’t moral laws, but government isn’t the author of morality. God is. And there are moral limits on what a government can do – even when the unanimous approval of elected representatives. These are some of the precepts of natural law.
Natural law aside, Castleberry’s legislation can claim more than a merely moral end. It is also aimed (indirectly perhaps) at protecting children from predators. And that is certainly a legitimate government end to which SB 126 is more than rationally related.
These are the views and opinions of the writer and not those of the University of South Dakota, its Knudson School of Law, or the South Dakota Board of Regents..
(updated with a revised story) The Argus Leader is reporting this afternoon that one proposal that may come out of Governor Noem’s office in the short term is to potentially decriminalize using or possessing small amounts of marijuana:
Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration is considering legislation that would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana in South Dakota.
Lawmakers this week got their first look at potential legislation coming out of the governor’s office that limits the number of plants a medical marijuana user could grow in their home, while also ending South Dakota’s practice of incarcerating adults caught using or possessing marijuana for recreational purposes.
and..
Noem’s chief of staff, Tony Venhuizen, said the governor isn’t necessarily in support of the draft proposal, among multiple being considered by Noem and lawmakers behind the scenes.
“This is one of several draft bills being circulated for discussion and Gov. Noem has not endorsed any of them,” he said.
Governor Noem Statement on Closure of Hill City Sawmill
PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Noem gave the following statement on the closure of the Hill City Sawmill:
“This is devastating news for the Sawmill’s employees, their families, and the Hill City community. Sadly, this could have been avoided if the federal government properly managed the Black Hills National Forest, but the U.S. Forest Service continues to ignore recommendations from the experts on allowable timber sales.
“Many of our Black Hills communities rely on the resources that the National Forest provides. Federal mismanagement threatens the health of these communities and the Forest. I will continue to work with our Congressional Delegation to improve the management of the Black Hills National Forest.”
Thune: Republicans Will Continue to Defend Minority Party’s Rights to Forge Bipartisanship, Compromise
“I encourage my colleagues to think about that time when they will be in the minority again – and to ask themselves whether they really want to eliminate their voices, and the voices of their constituents, in future policy battles.”
Click here or on the picture above to watch Thune’s speech.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today discussed Democrats’ ongoing threats to get rid of the legislative filibuster. He emphasized the importance of the filibuster in the Senate and the vital role it plays in maintaining bipartisan cooperation and forcing compromise between the two parties. Thune also noted that the elimination of the legislative filibuster would significantly erode the fair representation the American people expect from Congress.
PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA: Marty Jackley announced today that he has received the endorsement of State’s Attorneys from 59 counties in South Dakota so far.
“The county State’s Attorneys are on the front lines prosecuting crimes to keep South Dakota families safe, and I am honored to have their support,” said Marty Jackley.
Pennington County State’s Attorney Mark Vargo said, “Marty’s return to the Attorney General’s office would mean exactly what it always has…hard work, integrity, and old-fashioned South Dakota leadership by example. I am thrilled to see him come back as a partner because he embodies the professionalism and values that South Dakota deserves from its Attorney General.”
Brookings County State’s Attorney Dan Nelson said, “Marty is a proven leader for South Dakota. As Attorney General, he worked tirelessly to support State’s Attorneys across South Dakota to ensure they received the assistance needed to keep their communities safe. I appreciate his willingness to serve and lead our law enforcement efforts again as the next Attorney General.”
Clay County State’s Attorney Alexis Tracy said, “Marty’s proven experience and record as Attorney General, United States Attorney, and as a State’s Attorney is why he has my full support to be our next Attorney General.”
The South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association named Marty the South Dakota Prosecutor of the Year in 2008, and they presented him with their Distinguished Service Award in 2019.
Last week, an article appeared in the Augustana University Newspaper where former Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin discussed what caused her to consider leaving her job as President of Augustana University, as she was recently sworn in to the federal bar, a first step in possibly being nominated for Federal Judge.
As noted in the March 19 Augustana U paper:
Okay then… has nothing to do with the “for life” appointment to the bench and all..
Rounds-Backed Bill to Expand Vaccine Access for Vets & Caregivers Heads to President’s Desk
Bill would provide COVID-19 vaccine services to all vets, spouses, & caregivers at the VA
WASHINGTON – The Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation cosponsored by Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) to expand COVID-19 vaccine eligibility to veterans and their families under the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This legislation now heads to the president’s desk to be signed into law.
The Strengthening and Amplifying Vaccination Efforts to Locally Immunize all Veterans and Every Spouse (SAVE LIVES) Act would allow the VA to provide COVID-19 vaccination services to all veterans, veteran spouses, caregivers, and Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) recipients to the extent that such vaccines are available. It also urges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to adjust the VA’s vaccine allocation based on this increased eligibility pool, as much as the supply chain allows.
“Every South Dakota veteran, spouse, and caregiver should have access to the COVID-19 vaccine through the VA,” said Rounds. “Our bipartisan legislation expands the VA’s authority to vaccinate our American heroes and their caregivers, so we can continue to safely return our country back to normal. I urge President Biden to sign our legislation into law.”
The SAVE LIVES Act will expand VA’s authority to provide vaccines to:
Veterans who are not eligible for enrollment in VA’s health care system, including veterans without compensable service-connected disabilities and veterans who have incomes above a certain threshold;
Caregivers of veterans who are enrolled in various VA home-based and long-term care programs;
Spouses of veterans; and
CHAMPVA recipients (spouses of permanently and totally disabled veterans or of veterans who have died from service-connected disabilities).
Senator Rounds joined this bill led by VA Committee Chairman Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Ranking Member Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and cosponsors Senators John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Margaret Hassan (D-N.H.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
Governor Noem Statement on Closure of Hill City Sawmill
