Once again, Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard agrees with Democratic blog Dakota Free Press—House Bill 1158, Rep. Rev Scott Craig’s (R-33/Rapid City) proposal to swamp South Dakota refugee settlement organizations with meetings and paperwork and effectively shut down placement of refugees in our rich and spacious state, is bad policy:
The bill, which is scheduled for a hearing in the House State Affairs Committee on Monday, would grant Daugaard extraordinary powers.
Nevertheless, he has spoken out against it.
“The administration opposes (HB 1158),” said Daugaard’s Communications Director Kelsey Pritchard in an email. “Under the federal Refugee Act, governors do not have the authority to refuse to accept refugees” [Mike Anderson, “Governor Disavows Bill That Would Block Refugees; Critics Say It Is Unconstitutional,” Rapid City Journal, 2016.02.07].
The Department of Social Services, which would oversee refugee resettlement under HB 1158 and have the power to declare complaining towns off-limits to refugees for up to a year, says Lutheran Social Services is running refugee resettlement in our state just fine and doesn’t want to take on the added burdens. Senate sponsor Bruce Rampelberg (R-30/Rapid City) admits neither the state nor he is qualified to make HB 1158 work:
But Rampelberg said he doesn’t think the state could create an extra layer of scrutiny for refugees to pass on the state level. “I don’t think we’re qualified or prepared to do something like that,” he said. “I’m a South Dakota banker. I don’t know” [Anderson, 2016.02.07].
Inspiring even less confidence in our Legislature, Rep. Rev. Craig defends his bill by claiming “There are people who have come in to cause acts of terror,” despite the fact that refugees have not committed a single act of terrorism in South Dakota in this century and maybe ever… unless you want to stretch your definitions and go back to Wounded Knee 1890 and white-run boarding schools for Indians.
Rep. Rev. Craig also agrees with every expert cited in Anderson’s article that his bill is probably unconstitutional. Hmm… when you take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States,” do you violate that oath by proposing legislation that runs against that Constitution?
Rep. Rev. Craig’s “We Hate Refugees, the Constitution, and the Truth” bill goes before House State Affairs tomorrow morning, Monday, at 7:45. Let’s hope for rationality, respect for refugees and the Constitution, and a quick death to this bill.
You asked, “[W]hen you take an oath to ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’ do you violate that oath by proposing legislation that runs against that Constitution?” YES!
Perhaps Rep. Rev. Craig will have the integrity to resign his seat but I doubt it.
I agree with Mark, proposing legislation that a legislator knows or believes to violate the Constitution has to be a violation of the oath of office. The proper course of action would be to seek an amendment to the Constitution to accomplish whatever legislative objective the legislator has in mind.
Article 3, section 8 of the SD Constitution provides in part:
” § 8. Oath required of legislators and officers–Forfeiture of office for false swearing. Members of the Legislature and officers thereof, before they enter upon their official duties, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States . . .
Any member or officer of the Legislature who shall be convicted of having sworn falsely to, or violated his said oath, shall forfeit his office and be disqualified thereafter from holding the office of senator or member of the house of representatives or any office within the gift of the Legislature.”
Wingnuts in all red states have to feel good about having a 5-4 activist wingnut majority on the Scotus. It has to embolden them to the point where they believe whatever they pass for state laws will likely be upheld by their soul mates on the Scotus.
What puzzles me most is these people thinking that state laws will trump federal laws. I don’t think even the court configured the way it is now would agree with that.
Bear, how do we make that forfeiture of office happen? Is there a judicial remedy, or, per SD Const. Article 3 Section 9, is the House the only body that can judge Rep. Craig’s qualifications to keep his office?
Bear & Cory-
Wow. That section sure applies to a bunch of idiots in Pierre right now.
Shame Mr. Craig out of office, that would be the fastest way. People should walk around with signs in his neighborhood.
Cory, I can’t say for sure how to enforce that provision, but I have a couple of guesses.
First, I believe violation of an oath constitutes malfeasance, and Article 16 of the Constitution provides for impeachment and prosecution of any public officer who is alleged to have committed malfeasance.
Second, since the oath is a sworn statement before a judge, I would guess that the AG could prosecute the legislator criminally for violating his oath in the same manner that Boswell was charged and convicted of violating her oath, namely based on an accusation of committing perjury and making a false sworn statement.
Such a charge, however, would apparently have to be brought after the legislative session ends since the SD Constitution grants legislators immunity from arrest during session for most crimes.
Mr. bat! I had no idea you were such a legal beagle but you may have hit on the ticket to keep the legislatures occupied for the rest of their time! Did they not drag some young fellow up for a trial about sleeping with a young lad intern a few years back and they did it in the middle of the sessions? Maybe it was just about kicking people out of the legislatures, then the crime trials can come later.
Craig (and possibly others) NEED to be brought to task for actions–but with our current silent AG’s responses to wrongdoing it would have to come from his cohorts–probably te Dems!
bcb – whenever I have pointed out to elected officials there duty to uphold their oath regarding constitution, laws, ordinances, etc., they always dismiss their short-comings with another phrase from that same oath; “….. according to the best of my abilities …..”. I.E., they claim this phrase allows them to claim a “disability”, or maybe – “I just can’t do it.” or even “Well, I don’t REALLY have to.” as justifying their failure to uphold their oath. Or, maybe it’s like from childhood, the shouting of “Kings X !”
Pull back the impeachment pitchforks! Someone must have talked some sense into Rep. Craig: ACLU’s Libby Skarin reports that Rep. Craig asked House State Affairs to table HB 1158, and House State Affairs unanimously obliged.
Like a bad dream, Craig awoke to find himself legislating from Pierre in his stained undies.
With all the brilliant offers of legislation currently flooding their brains, none will have the additionall capacity to act upon the broken laws bringing death obviously and possibly less obviously to children left behind in the grant fraud, breaking down their chances for advancement.