House Bill 1069 was introduced this past week with an eye on reforming and rectifying the problems that have arisen in State law as a result of the passage of Initiated Measure 22, which has been declared as unconstitutional and enjoined by Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett:
HB1069P by Pat Powers on Scribd
While the measure has significant sponsorship (I counted 50 of the 70 house members, and 27 of the 35 Senate members) there are still a few dissenters who oppose taking action.
In considering that. my attention is drawn to the oath of office legislators are required to take, as dictated in the State Constitution:
§ 3. Oath of office. Every person elected or appointed to any office in this state, except such inferior offices as may be by law exempted, shall, before entering upon the duties thereof, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, and faithfully to discharge the duties of his office.
For the sake of discussion, if a legislator is required to swear an oath to support the constitution of the state – aren’t they almost obligated to rectify and remove laws that are contrary to it?
Your thoughts?
This is the bill to repeal IM 22?
Looks like there is enough support for an emergency clause.
Then it’s time to go farther than IM 22 did and create an ethics commission for the entire state.
The Legislature doesn’t get to decide what is or is not unconstitutional, the courts do. That said, IM 22 hasn’t been declared unconstitutional. So I don’t really see the point here
http://www.newscenter1.tv/story/34110115/court-measure-on-ethics-campaign-finance-unconstitutional
Actually it was. Those that disagree are appealing.
But the fact that the Supreme Court is willing to hear the case proves that the Circuit Court decision on IM 22 is not necessarily the final word….
If you remember right, some Republican governors who embraced Obamacare, and its Medicaid possibilities, waited until the SCOTUS weight in before proactively assuming the world that they lived in….
You have an automatic right to appeal in South Dakota, Winston.
“House Bill 1069 was introduced this past week with an eye on reforming and rectifying the problems that have arisen in State law as a result of the passage of Initiated Measure 22,”— Why, if IM22 has been found to be UnConstitutional?
“State Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett heard arguments for the case on December 8, 2016, and issued a preliminary injunction, putting the measure’s effects on hold temporarily.”– It has NOT been found unConstitutional The link you provide as I said days ago uses unConstitutional in the heading and it is not mentioned in the article…that and a tweet is all you have to claim it has been declared UC.. I provided at least 8 reputable sources that says basically “”State Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett heard arguments for the case on December 8, 2016, and issued a preliminary injunction, putting the measure’s effects on hold temporarily.”– “temporarily”!!!
If as you claim IM22 has officially been declared unConstitutional it should be easy to find the legal document declaring it so ; it should have been the headline on every news outlet in this state…it was not.. You sir, have access and links to every aspect of state government, if IM 22 was legally declared unConstitutional, why is your only proof of that ONE misleading TV heading and one tweet? Where is your proof other than the misleading TV heading and one tweet?
Pat, I agree that IM22 is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed, but arguing that legislators are violating their oath of office for not sponsoring this bill seems like a bit of a stretch. For one, how many legislators end up voting for and supporting bills that they weren’t sponsors of? And is it not okay for a legislator to disagree with the Circuit Court and want the Supreme Court to rule?
Where did I say they were violating their oath?
Jaa Dee,
This is really getting old. Unless the SD Supreme Court over-rules Judge Barnett, IM22 has absolutely no force of law.
http://kelo.com/news/articles/2017/jan/19/im-22-debate-may-hit-state-supreme-court/
“Circuit Judge Mark Barnett put the measure on hold after a suit was brought by a group of Republican state lawmakers, declaring, at least parts of it, unconstitutional.”
Because the of the constitutional restriction on “one subject,” there is virtually no chance of it being upheld. Personally, I think the Legislature should do nothing and let the Supreme Court rule is unconstitutional.
Every day this measure sits in court the AG has to defend it, and costs the state money. This money could be used for little things like roads, education maybe even a new pencil sharpener.
That’s why we pay the AG and his staff. That’s part of their job description.They don’t get overtime.
Yes sir, it is getting old–We now have 2 tv lines and one tweet you try to use as proof–
-I provided at least 8 reputable sources that says basically “”State Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett heard arguments for the case on December 8, 2016, and issued a preliminary injunction, putting the measure’s effects on hold temporarily.”– “temporarily”!!!
If as you claim IM22 has officially been declared unConstitutional it should be easy to find the legal document declaring it so ; it should have been the headline on every news outlet in this state…I provided at least 8 reputable sources that says basically “”State Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett heard arguments for the case on December 8, 2016, and issued a preliminary injunction, putting the measure’s effects on hold temporarily.”– “temporarily”!!!
If as you claim IM22 has officially been declared unConstitutional it should be easy to find the legal document declaring it so ; it should have been the headline on every news outlet in this state…it was not— if IM 22 was legally declared unConstitutional, why is your only proof of that ONE misleading TV heading and one tweet? Where is your proof other than the misleading TV heading and one tweet?
if IM 22 was legally declared unConstitutional, why is your only proof of that ONE(2) misleading TV heading and one tweet? Where is your proof other than the misleading TV heading and one tweet?
————————-
You can provide the the official decision from Barnett or you can find another tweet to support your gullible claim… Quit insulting me and PROVE your claim with verifiable legal proof.. Why can you not do that? Do you think Gilligans Island is a documentary because it is on TV—As I told Pat the last time on this issue, if you guys had my argument and requests you can NOT comply with and I had 2 local tv lines and a tweet y’all would have a laughingparty– as you would be entitled to—-
“If as you claim IM22 has officially been declared unConstitutional it should be easy to find the legal document declaring it so ; it should have been the headline on every news outlet in this state…it was not-“————- Y’all claim it y’all prove it with legal facts not hearsay..
“I think the Legislature should do nothing and let the Supreme Court rule is unconstitutional.”–Bllllaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaasnotetc…..Do you know what you said?
Jaadee,
Since you are in Cambridge I’ll let you know that circuit court decisions are not published inSD but you can call the Hughes county (sd) clerk of courts and request a copy. I’ve read it. Pretty clear.
Other points, the appeal is of the decision not to let the Weilend group intervene as a party and appeals in this state are a right not based on the review of the Supreme Court.
Hire someone from this state that knows something please with your masssachuets money before faining indignity.
PS dude, I was not talking to you with my first comment—-but if you are that intent on showing yourself as the fool—jump in anytime..
Jaa Dee,
Your anger should be addressed. I posted a link to Kelo and a relevant quote. Essentially, Circuit Court Judge issued a ruling which prevents IM22 from having any effect in law. He based his ruling on constitutional reasons. That is where the law sits (can’t be enforced or implemented) unless the ruling is over-turned by the Supreme Court.
If you want to argue there has been no ruling by the Supreme Court, argue it but the reality is the same- IM22 has no force of law in South Dakota at the current time.
The liberals seem to argue on faith over fact. They no longer can carry out a debate as they’ve become so intellectually lazy as to imply our just just state your’re a sexist, a homophob, anti-gay or a racist. Their simple reply to everything when losing is name calling and labeling. To come out of the political darkness try engaging instead of name calling. It works much better and people may just listen. I prefer you to follow Hollywood and Madona, it’s working well for you😂😭😃
Jaa Dee is from MA??!! Not surprising based on the tone of his/her rhetoric. You should be happy living with the east coast crowd who mostly feel as you do, so why is it so important that you keep commenting on things that are occurring in SD? I had thought you were from SD, but now if not then your thoughts and comments on the goings-on in SD are irrelevant to me. Why not keep them to yourself and be as political as you want at home? I guess I would hope that the rest of the SD commentators on this blog feel the same way.
Reading through this bill, it’s obvious a great deal of work has gone into its development. I think we should all be grateful for the time, thought and energy the bill sponsors have put into fixing the fraudulent and unconstitutional mess brought to us by the proponents of IM22.
Fred, you have a right to your alternative fact.
Not supporting a specific replacement bill is not the same as not opposing IM22.
And whether or not a bill, law, regulation, etc. is unconstitutional or not may often be a matter of interpretation and judgment. Legislators are not required to surrender their own intellect and judgment to that of a court – or a blogger – on this or any other constitutional question. The legislature is an equal branch of the government, not subordinate to the courts.
So it is not appropriate to suggest, as you clearly do, that legislators opposed to or not supporting this particular proposal are either a) not concerned to rectify and/or reform measures that are unconstitutional; or b) failing to uphold their oath of office.
Its obviously unconstitutional. Just kill it. What is with the Left with their anti-Constitutional attitude?
The left is just being the left. They are still following the mantra of Obama who said that the Constitution is a living, breathing, document subject to change according to the whims of whoever.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_Constitution/
“In his second book, The Audacity of Hope, State Senator Obama asserted that the Constitution was not a static document, but rather a living one, that must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. He went on to add that democracy was a conversation to be had and that the genius of the Constitution was not that it provided a blueprint for action, but rather that it forced us into a conversation.
“In separate radio interviews in 2001, State Senator Obama spoke at length about the constitution. In on inerview, he called the Constitution an imperfect document in reference to it’s obvious omission of slaves being given equal rights. He stated that this imperfection, or blind spot in the culture, continues to this day. In a second interview, State Senator Obama asserted that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties in that it states what the State and Federal government could not do to you. He asserts that it is flawed in that it does not state what the State and Federal governments should be obligated to do on your behalf. In discussing the Warren court, Obama stated that it wasn’t truly radical in that it did not break free from the constraints placed upon it by the founders. He noted that the court never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.”
How do yo know Dave?