Christian Constitutionalist KrisAnne Hall is coming to Sioux Falls on October 1 to make a speech about “state sovereignty”. The event is hosted by Aaron Aylward, who happens to be chairman of South Dakota’s Libertarian Party and who happens to be running as a Libertarian for District 6 House but who tells me the Hall event is not a Libertarian Party or campaign event. He’s bringing Hall here simply “to educate people in the state of South Dakota.”
Whether or not the event is connected with South Dakota’s largest alternative party (and the only one able to conduct its business properly and place candidates on the November ballot), I am pleased to see Libertarians able to plan ahead. Alas, I’m not sure I can be pleased to see a speech by KrisAnne Hall declared to be an opportunity to “educate” South Dakotans.
I don’t know Hall’s work, but my alarm bells ring when I read the event blurb:
What is the real now solution to federal overreach? Article 5 convention gives a 5-10-year time frame. What if we don’t have 5-10 years to put the federal government back in its proper boundaries? No time for pointing fingers. KrisAnne Hall gives real time solutions that We The People need to correct this federal government out of control. No opinions. Just historical facts [“KrisAnne Hall on State Sovereignty,” event description, Facebook, retrieved 2018.08.17].
No opinions, just historical facts? That sounds a lot like the assertion of absolute, irrefutable factuality that Ron Branstner uses to launch his propagandistic inducements to mass hatred. When I offer speeches to the public (next one August 27, on worker rights!), I don’t feel the need to meta-assert my absolute factuality: I just let my facts speak for themselves.
Hall’s online autobiography gives me more pause. Beyond her professed Constitutionalism (which term I would use to describe my own respect for the supreme law of the land, although I have a feeling she and I come to different conclusions about the application of that sacred document), Hall indicates that she denies global warming, denies the Big Bang in favor of creationism, and denies the efficacy of vaccines. Elsewhere, Hall claims that the two greatest threats to our Constitution are “the Marxist training camps that we call schools that teach our children that the Constitution is irrelevant because we live in a technologically advanced era” and a wide misreading of the Supremacy Clause, which she says authorizes the states to ignore any federal laws they deem unconstitutional:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MM4H-NAdKI
“Wow, crazy stuff,” says the correspondent.
Hall says that nearly every federal agency other than the military is unconstitutional and that citizens should ignore federal laws they consider unconstitutional. her position appears to be that the Founders really didn’t intend to make any changes from the far-too-loose Articles of Confederation when they made all that fuss about writing the Supremacy Clause and the new Constitution. She’ll have a hard convincing me that that position is historical fact and not merely a mistaken opinion.
But hey, she’ll have her chance to convince South Dakotans of her “facts” on October 1.
I am certainly guilty of developing a Marxist training camp. I frequently asked students to provide the last name of the brothers Gummo, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo, and Groucho as bonus question. I thought it worked with vocab quizzes because Groucho had a secret word on “You Bet Your Life.” I had no idea I was causing harm to the Republic.
Thanks for getting the word out there, Corey! Although you may not agree with her, I do appreciate it. The best thing for people to do, is to show up and hear KrisAnne, in person, and then make the decision for yourself. Keep in mind that there is no charge to attend.
Kal Lis, my wife is a teacher, and I obviously know that she’s not a Marxist. Lol. There are definitely good teachers out there. KrisAnne is dogging on the system itself, not every single teacher out there in the U.S.
Here’s a serious question for you, Corey, and whoever else is reading this…. What would you want the state of South Dakota to do, if congress and the current executive administration mandated an unjust law on this state? A mandate that you did not agree with. Would you not want South Dakota to nullify that mandate?
Great, another hate kook coming to South Dakota. Well, why not? In the world of Libertarianism anything goes, and hate seems to be what’s going there. Ron Paul, after all, was a noted racist. Libertarians need to clean house if they are going to be taken seriously. I guess the Russian found another route to fund hate and division.
Donald Pay, where is this racist Ron Paul? Something other than those old newsletters that he did not write.
Also, in the world of Libertarianism, it is not anything goes. How can an ideology of non aggression and the non initiation of force be an anything goes type of environment?
Ron Paul says he didn’t write the racist newsletters, but they certainly went out under his name. He lied or he’s a terrible manager of his own newsletter. In any case those hatescreeds went out with his imprimatur.
And stop distracting from this person you invited to “educate” the people of South Dakota about “state sovereignty,” which has long been a code word for racial injustice, even slavery. There are all sorts of 10th Amendment fanatics out and this convention idea is their latest gambit to destroy America. My antenna also gets raised when I see she “speaks Russian.” I guess with Maria Butina in the slammer, the Russians have to have another outlet to “educate” South Dakotans. Well, congratulations, you’ve found her. I hope you prove that not anything goes with Libertarianism and disinvite this neo-fascist.
Ron Paul did not write those letters, and if that’s all someone can dig up on him for being a supposed racist, I’ll let the lack of evidence speak for itself. If you actually take the time to read or listen to the guy, you’ll see that he’s for peace, love, and treating people fairly.
I’ll ask this again….What would you want the state of South Dakota to do, if congress and the current executive administration mandated an unjust law on this state? A mandate that you did not agree with. Would you not want South Dakota to nullify that mandate?
There are many folks who believe firmly in the 10th Amendment, because they don’t believe that someone in D.C. should be dictating the way they live. Is it really appropriate to lump pro 10th Amendment folks into a group of pro slavery? I would say no.
Donald Pay, I invite you to come listen to her speak on October 1st. You’ll find that she’s none of these evil things you perceive her being and she’s actually a pretty good gal. Definitely not a radical authoritarian ultranationalist.
What “mandates” are you talking about? All this stuff about “mandates” is vastly overblown. You can’t even name one. You are trying to make me name one. I believe in the 10th Amendment, too, but don’t use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to violate laws and support terrorism. That’s what Kellyanne Hall advocates.
https://arcdigital.media/ron-pauls-history-of-racist-statements-8dd6aff7a767
Paul claimed responsibility for writing these letters during his ’96 congressional campaign.
It’s things like this, and of course support for the demon weed, that push people like me away from the Libertarian party and make us run for Governor under the Constitutional Party flag. They have a flag, right, and it’s not dorkier than most is it?
Aaron, when you ask whether someone in Washington should be dictating how you live, that raises the question – if not someone in Washington, then exactly who do you want to dictate how we live?
Someone in Pierre government?
Someone in our county government?
Someone in our city government?
And why would you prefer to have one group dictate how we live rather than another group?
Or perhaps you prefer anarchy where no one dictates how anyone lives – i.e. no laws whatsoever?
Someone (actually the group that’s sent to be lawmakers) absolutely should dictate how America lives. Without that central direction racism, bigotry and tilted educational standards spring up in Conservative states. Just because a state’s majority legalizes discrimination doesn’t mean it should be allowable. State’s Rights have limits!
Donald Pay: I am not trying to get you to name a mandate or law but rather inviting you to think of a hypothetical situation. Here’s an example, but look at the principle of the matter rather than just the one issue.
https://reason.com/archives/2018/06/11/on-marijuana-elizabeth-warren-discovers
mike from iowa: That sounds about right, he did take responsibility for the newsletters but did not write them. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is friends with guys like Walter E. Williams, Walter Block, was friends with Murray Rothbard, and has always looked up to Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and sometimes Milton Friedman. I question why he would surround himself with these gentlemen, if he really is racist.
grudznick: What type of things draw you towards the Libertarian Party?
bearcreekbat: I want the representation to be as local as possible. Someone in my county, district, or town is going to be much more understanding of life in that said geography, compared to someone who is supposedly representing a constituency of over 800,000 people out in D.C. Do you feel as if Kristi Noem represents you? She sure doesn’t represent me.
Porter Lansing: I hear what you’re saying, states rights definitely do have limits.
Mr. Aylward, I like the pervasive attitude of “f- all the bossturds” and I really like how everybody in the party is insaner than nearly everybody else. However, the Libertarian party has gone all “weed wacko” and has been taken over by tokers, so I am now running for Governor under the Constitutional Party flag.
The demon weed is bad, it is bad. Look at my leather skinned friend Lar.
Aaron Aylward- I believe the article said he took responsibility for writing the letters. That means, to me, he wrote them himself and I am not aware of any alternative meaning.
Someone may have stepped in and taken a bullet, as it were, for Rand, but it remains to be seen.
There is no reason to de-write the Constitution over hypotheticals. We’ve got the Trump situation right now. I can’t imagine something as out-of-control or a threat greater than that. We have a Constitutional remedy. It’s called impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. If the Congress refuses to do its duty, we have an Amendment or two that addresses that situation. There is no need for any Convention.
Ron not Rand. My bad.
Aaron, your answer is a bit confusing when you say: “I want the representation to be as local as possible” and then complain about Noem. Isn’t Noem “as local as possible” since she lives on a ranch in eastern SD? And the same holds for Thune and Rounds – aren’t both local as possible since they are native South Dakotans? I personally don’t care for any of the three, yet my complaints are based upon what they do or don’t do as elected representatives. I cannot see how your complaint (you want someone local as possible) has any relevance to these politicians whatsoever?
Donald Pay: I agree, I don’t think there’s any reason for an article 5 convention, and I don’t believe KrisAnne does either. She actually did a podcast show on that topic a couple of weeks ago and said she was neither for or against the convention but it’s definitely there as an option, in the constitution. Her talk will be in regards to state sovereignty and the proper role of the federal government. Not so much on the convention of states.
bearcreekbat: I apologize about the confusion. What I am saying is, South Dakota currently has over 860,000 people, so how can Noem or whoever takes the house seat, properly represent all of those people. They can’t. At least not very well. Each representative is supposed to cover 30,000 people (I believe that’s the figure), not 800,000+. You see what I mean? I get it, the population has increased drastically from the days in which these states were created, but the something needs to be fixed there. At least I think so.
Now, when you scale things back to the state and county level, things get represented much more accurately and people are given more of a voice. When I say, “as local as possible” I am talking about a smaller constituent to representative ratio.
Aaron, no apology is necessary as we are discussing intersting and potentially important ideas. I think I understand your point.
Do you think it might cause problems if the rules change from county to county? For example, if an act is deemed lawful in one county but deemed illegal in the next county, wouldn’t that create chaos, especially for people will travel among counties? Is consistency in our laws across the state a value that should be discarded in favor of local rule?
Congressional districts are allotted 1 rep for around every 700k people if memory serves.
bearcreekbat: I don’t think the problems would be as bad as you may think. Look at city ordinances for example, as they differ from city to city.
mike from iowa: Per the U.S. Constitution, “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative…” 1 rep for roughly 700k people is close to what the average is now.
Aaron, you make a good point about the differences among city ordinances, yet, those differences are only as great as permitted by State and federal law. Eliminating State and federal law opens up the ability of cities to enact laws permitting discrimination based on race, religion mandates, denial of free speech, etc., etc., etc.
Indeed, some communities could legalize child abuse and sexual abuse based on their particular interpretation of past religious views – e.g. spare the rod spoil the child, parental control over child mariages, along with the public stoning of disfavored groups and the denial of due process for folks accused of wrong doing. How would the elimination of federal and state controls address that potential problem?
Howz this for a kick in the pants, Aaron?
Computing Apportionment
Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution states:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
Therein lies the primary mandate of the U.S. census, apportionment of the House of Representatives. Since that first census in 1790, five methods of apportionment have been used. The current method used, the Method of Equal Proportions, was adopted by congress in 1941 following the census of 1940. This method assigns seats in the House of Representatives according to a “priority” value. The priority value is determined by multiplying the population of a state by a “multiplier.”
For example, following Census 2000, each of the 50 states was given one seat out of the current total of 435. The next, or 51st seat, went to the state with the highest priority value and thus became that state’s second seat. This continued until all 435 seats had been assigned to a state. This is how it is done.
Equal Proportions Method
P – represents a state’s total population
n – represents the number of seats a state would have if it gained a seat (because all states automatically received one seat the next seat gained is “seat two,” and the next “seat three,” and the next “seat four,” and so on.)
The multiplier equals:
1 divided by the square root of n(n-1)
[which is called the reciprocal of the geometric mean]. Computing these values is quite easy using a PC and a good spreadsheet package.
Thus the formula for calculating the multiplier for the second seat is:
1 divided by the square root of 2(2-1)
or 1/1.414213562 or 0.70710678
the multiplier for the third seat is:
1 divided by the square root of 3(3-1)
1/2.449489743 or 0.40824829
the multiplier for the fourth seat is:
1 divided by the square root of 4(4-1)
1/3.464101615 or 0.288675134
Continue until an appropriate number of multipliers have been calculated.
Once the “multipliers” have been calculated, the next step is to multiply this figure by the population total for each of the 50 states (the District of Columbia is not included in these calculations). The resulting numbers are the priority values. Make sure you compute enough multipliers to cover the largest amount of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that any one state stands to gain. Multipliers and priority values must be calculated for the largest number of seats assigned to a state. For example, if the largest number of seats assigned to a state is 50, multipliers and priority values must be calculated for the 50th seat. If you are using a PC, compute multipliers for seats 2 through 60. This will assure you have enough multipliers for apportionment.
Once you’ve calculated priority values for each state for the total anticipated seats, the next step is to rank and number the resulting priority values starting with seat 51 until all 435 seats have been assigned (remember, each state automatically received one seat). Next, tally the number of seats for each state to arrive at the total number of seats in the House of Representatives apportioned to each state.