The South Dakota Legislature needs shorter oath of office. To take office, legislators are led ploddingly, sometimes one word at a time, through 131 Constitutionally required words, just to spend two 40-day Sessions in Pierre making trouble. Good grief—Donald Trump only had to say 35 words to get the keys to nuclear missiles. Immigrants say 140 words to get to stay in America for life.
But don’t let our 1889 verbosity distract you from the pleasure of seeing Representative Peri Pourier proudly swear her dedication to upholding our federal and state constitutions and honestly legislate for District 27 and all South Dakotans:
Nice to hear Chief Gilbertson not make that oath any longer with those four unnecessary theocratic words, so help me God. Contrary to Governor Noem’s constant conflation of herself with Joel Osteen, our public servants are not elected by any god to serve any god, and we don’t need to hear public servants use this constitutionally sacred moment to affirm the superiority of any one sect’s beliefs. We need our public servants to mean what they say, say what they mean, and act constantly in the interest of all South Dakotans.
No one in this photo has their hand on a Bible, our republic is in danger.
Joel Osteen? Cory’s humor is like blue sky and no wind during a dreary winter term.
I have written about the oath of office’s promise to support ther Constitution of the U.S. I have argued that oath is violated when a legislator, like Stace Nelson, intends to introduce legislation that seeks to use the power of government to interfere with a right that the SCOTUS has ruled is protected by the Constitution, such as the right of privacy in family planning matters. Nelson has suggested that I am flat out wrong, but offered no analysis or explanation to explain what he perceives to be the basis for believing I am wrong.
I haven’t seen many other comments about this issue here on DFP. This thread provides the perfect forum to address the obligations undertaken by swearing an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. So what say you Cory and DFP commentors, what are your reasons or the factual basis for concluding whether am I full of it or correct? And what about Nelson’s question – should such a public violation of the oath be addressed upon by the appropriate authority, and if so, by what authority?
bcb – I don’t know if I have enough context to give you my full opinion yet, but do you mean to suggest that if somebody swears to uphold the constitution, they are barred from seeking changes to it? If so, that seems to lead to the conclusion that the constitution can’t be changed unless the change is initiated by a private citizen. Then, leading from there, I wonder if legislators would “give up” their rights as private citizens by swearing in?
Cory, i feel like there is a conflict within the phrase “constitutionally sacred” as you use it here…sacred specifically means religiously important, no?
Nick: hee hee!
Ryan, I employ the word in a broader sense and savor the tension. I’m an atheist, but I hold certain things sacred, among them, democracy, the rule of law, and the power of reason over force.
More trouble than Nick can even imagine- the video is unavailable.
Prolly kidnapped by wingnuts.
Definition of sacred. 1a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity a tree sacred to the gods. b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) a fund sacred to charity. 2a : worthy of religious veneration : holy. b : entitled to reverence and respect.
I’m going with 1b and 2b.
The word bible isn’t used only for a certain religious book. There is a Shooter’s Bible.
Shooter’s Bible, 105th Edition: The World’s Bestselling Firearms Reference
Book
Ryan, no – in no way do I mean someone swearing an oath to support the Constitution cannot or should not seek to change a constitutional provision. That can be done consistent with the oath of office to support Constitution by by simply following the steps the Constitution sets out for amendments.
Rather, my point focuses first on all too typical cases, where a legislator introduces or supports a bill that he intends to be in direct conflict with the current interpretation of the Constitution. This seems to be a frequent tactic that seeks to use litigation as a means of convincing the SCOTUS to change its prior rulings.
Note, this last tactic does not include private individuals who have not taken the oath. They are and must be free to advocate for such constitutionally contrary legislation through initative with the plan of litigation to follow. But perople such as legislators who have sworn to uphold the Constitution seem to be barred by the oath from using such a tactic. If I am incorrect, what fact have I overlooked?
Rep. Pourier looks wonderful. I note her neckwear and I believe, eagle feather in her hair. Perfectly attired for the time and place. Go get ’em, Rep. Pourier!
So BCB, the legislators and Congress people who’ve been writing bills they know, for a fact, violate their constitution, state or federal, are not honoring their oath to uphold that constitution?
I have to agree. Its become a favorite tool for the Wrong to overturn various civil rights and limit or eliminate other rights by forcing issues before courts. It also takes time and $ away from legitimate issues that really need to be addressed.
Is there a way we can know how much $ the SDGOP has WASTED in the courts that were not legitimate causes, but mere political gambits, often orchestrated by the Kochs/ALEC and their ilk? That “ilk” is very good at buying state governments that then finance the “ilk’s” political ambitions. It’s a win/win for them, a lose/lose for the state’s tax payers.
Bearcreekbat, I would be happy to press the issue. In taking an oath to defend the Constitution, legislators promise not to attack it with laws that would violate it. The problem, of course, is that Senator Nelson and his co-sponsoring Fox watchers would argue that they are acting in accordance with the Constitution. It’s hard to pin the Legislature down to an objective standard on what constitutes defending the Constitution. We’d almost have to wait for a court ruling. Maybe that should be the automatic penalty: if a court throws out a law as violating the Constitution, every legislator who voted for it loses office and may not run for public office again for some period of time.
Imagine if such a rule had existed in 2016 when Senator Deb Peters brought up the remote seller sales tax bill. How many legislators would still have voted Aye on that bill if they weren’t certain the Supreme Court would hand them a win?
Oh, and let’s oust Governors who sign such bills that are subsequently rules unconstitutional!
But do we allow some error, some saving grace? Is, say, Barack Obama entitled to say, “Hey, I really thought the Medicaid expansion requirement was consitutional; the Court just didn’t see it my way”? Where is the dividing line between blatantly violations of Constitutional rights and honest scholarly differences of interpretation of, say, the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause?
Thanks for the input Cory. I agree that there can be scholarly and honest differences in deciding what limits the Constitution imposes on local, state and federal government power. My first inquiry, however, addresses those cases where there is no honest or scholarly disagreement about the SCOTUS’s ruling that the Constitution requires or limits certain governmental action, but a legislator doesn’t like or agree with the Court’s ruling.
Thus the legislator introduces or supports a bill that is clearly in conflict with the current SCOTUS ruling in an effort to create litigation with the goal of convincing the Court to reverse course.
A possible factual justification might be to argue that the SCOTUS has no greater authority to interpret the Constitution than the legislative branch, although that is not typically the argument the legislator makes in a case challenging Court precedent. Instead, the argument typically would be that the SCOTUS’s precedent is incorrect and should be reversed. But if a legislator honestly contended he or she had equal power to interpret the Constitution as the SCOTUS, then why would the legislator rely on the Court to resolve a challenge any prior rulings in the first place?
Bills like Nelson’s recent attempt to expand the power of government to intrude in family planning decisions by requiring ultrasounds despite a woman’s right of privacy seem somewhat different. Such bills do not directly challenge a prior SCOTUS constitutional ruling, rather, they seek to undermine that prior ruling by expanding the power of government officials. Although such conduct seems questionable under the oath to “support” the Constitution, which has restricted government power, there isn’t much point in debating that issue until we can agree on a resolution to my first question. If the first course of action doesn’t violate the oath, the second surely does not. But if the 1st is a violation of the oath, then the 2nd seems questionable as well.
Outstanding, BCB
Oddly, I’m with Mr. mike, who is yet from Iowa, on two different counts on this one blogging.
2b, obviously.
And the shooter’s bible. It is an ageless reference book for the ages and aged.
BCB, of course you’re right. We all know that Roe v. Wade is settled law. But there are those who believe there is “wiggle room” if they just wiggle long and hard and loud and deceitfully enough and keep on forever. Just keep chip, chip, chipping away from different directions until there is nothing of the original decision left and the whole character of the original creation left and what there is left is reversed in meaning and in reality. They are incapable of understanding that our Constitution does not answer and never should bow or kneel or genuflect to their own religious and moral persuastion.
Of course you’re right. And of course, they know they’re legally and constitutionally wrong, but they don’t care. SCOTUS is the authority. SCOTUS needs to stand up and stand strong and say it once again and once and for all. But currently, I fear for SCOTUS and for our Constitution under the current SCOTUS.
Sometimes I wish I believed in gods, and believed they had the power to protect truth and justice and cast out the unjust.
Long live RBG.
As an athiest, grudznick would swear on the shooter’s bible if the elections sent me to the legislatures.
“persuasions” that was supposed to be. And Debbo, I share your concern about ALEC. They should be driven from the temple, if there were any justice.
Mr. H, grudznick believes that Mr. Obama is entitled to say “Hey, peeps, I though it was cool and constitutional. My bad.” and should not have been ousted from office for trying what he wanted to try. To say otherwise would be just sillier than most.
I’m struggling, Bear. I’d like there to be some hard standard we could use to stop Nelson and the Handmaid’s Talers from continually throwing spaghetti at the wall to undo what the Supreme Court has done. I’d like to say the U.S. Supreme Court should be able to shut down some lowly state legislator and hold him to his oath to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
A Kavanaugh court is as prone to abuse its power as a Nelson legislator. We need sane jurists to check the excesses of the Stace Nelsons and Jason Ravnsborgs… but we also need brave and smart legislators and other state officials who will push back against bad rulings from people like Kavanaugh (with whom we are stuck for a long time).
Let[s not forget there are many on the right that refuse to recognize federal law trumps (no pun intended) state law.
Cory, no need to worry about Kavanaugh and his ilk as the SCOTUS simply has no power to get involved. For a state legislator the oath is required by state statute and our state Constitution, not federal law. Thus, this is a purely state law question, despite the fact that the oath requires a promise to support the U.S. Constitution. There is no federal hook for federal court jurisdiction to enforce state law.
It also seems questionable whether the S.D. Supreme Court would even assert the authority to decide what the “support” language of the oath requires, as this may well be fall within the “political question doctrine” leading the Court to defer to the legislature.
If requested by a local States Attorney (or certain other state officials), the SD Attorney General could give an official, but non-binding, opinion about what the oath requires or prohibits. If Seiler had prevailed we could probably even get a careful, politically neutral opinion. With ther current Attorney General that could be a bit more problematic, but you never know for sure.
Corey Allen Heidelberger has been falling all over himself to defend two Democrat legislators that allegedly did not meet residency requirements to be legislators in South Dakota.
But let me get this straight –in an article written on January 2018 by none other than Corey Heidelberger against former Republican Senator Tapio regarding his residency, Heidelberg noted that “Tapio does not deny that he maintains a dwelling in Rapid City,” implying that his failure to deny the Rapid City dwelling outside of his district is a sign of “residency” outside of his district in violation of the law. Heidelberger even clarified the importance of the property records to indicate a sign of residency demanding, “let’s see the property records from Codington County,” in order to resolve the matter. (https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/01/23/tapio-whines-to-state-bar-about-schoenbeck-picking-on-him-and-his-rented-lake-house/)
But months later, in December of 2018, when writing about the residency of Democrat Senator Red Dawn Foster and Representative Peri Pourier, Heidelberger never points out that neither Foster nor Pourier have denied the allegations nor have they denied that they maintained “dwellings” elsewhere. And rumors are that Pourier admitted to Haugaard recently that she did live out of state in Nebraska for at least half-a-year. Further, in an instance or residency allegiations when property records are provided as evidence, Heidelberger hypocritically then proffers that “individuals may own property in other states and still be residents in this state,” almost entirely dismissing his earlier claim that maintaining property elsewhere may indicate a sign of residency. (https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/12/19/olson-swings-and-misses-in-challenging-foster-and-pourier-residency-gutzler-precedent-overrules/)
And here’s a punch line – it was none other than now elected Senator Lee Schoenbeck who was attacking Tapio on his residency requirement saying: “It’s an old scam for those that disrespect the state constitution and the idea that the people in our community deserve representation in Pierre,” but now the one and the same Schoenbeck – calls efforts to investigate the residency of two Democrat legislators “stupid.” So is Schoenbeck now a “scam” artist that “disrespects the state constitution?”
In addition, Heidelberg completely misses the point of Red Dawn Sally Foster’s property records at 9295 Adams Street, Thorton, CO, which is under a mortgage with JP Morgan bank, and why that is evidence of her residency elsewhere. As noted by the South Dakota Supreme Court in the case Rush v. Rush (2015), they noted that Rush “’was unable to credibly establish many of the primary hallmarks of true South Dakota residency at the time he filed for divorce in this state’ …. He did not advise important creditors … that he was moving to South Dakota.” (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/sd-supreme-court/1706793.html)
Likewise, neither did Red Dawn Foster. The fact is, for several years the property records indicate that she has never updated the address records for either the bank that holds the mortgage on the property or even the Colorado Adams County Assessor which taxes the property.
Pot meet kettle.
In reply to James.
Swinging and missing, James. You’re not arguing against me; you’re arguing against the entire GOP leadership, which found the allegations against Foster and Pourier without merit.
You also misrepresent what I wrote about Lee Schoenbeck’s question about Neal Tapio’s residency. Schoenbeck said Tapio maintained a physical residence at Lake Kampeska to qualify to run for District 5 Senate. Tapio claimed that Schoenbeck had challenged his residency qualification; Schoenbeck issued no such challenge, and neither did I, because Schoenbeck and I recognize that renting a cabin on Lake Kampeska establishes legal voting residency as surely as renting a mail box in Alexandria qualifies one to vote and run for Legislature in District 19.
I completely missed no point… but I challenge readers to figure out James’s point in his fifth paragraph. Where does the state constitution mention one’s bank and business dealings as a qualification for Legislature?
Schoenbeck is no scam artist. He’s a better lawyer than either James or I (faint praise, I know).
As for me, I don’t touch pot, and I ain’t no kettle.
Red Dawn Sally Foster’s property records at 9295 Adams Street, Thorton, CO, which is under a mortgage with JP Morgan bank, and why that is evidence of her residency elsewhere. The fact is, for several years the property records indicate that she has never updated the address records for either the bank that holds the mortgage on the property or even the Colorado Adams County Assessor which taxes the property.
PROBABLE RENTAL PROPERTY … NO EVIDENCE OF RESIDENCY SUBSTANTIATED