Here’s a quick rundown of bills you should ask your legislators to kill when they get back to work on Tuesday (or, maybe for Al Novstrup, Friday?):
- Senate Bill 122 would stop the Board of Regents from restricting firearms on our university campuses. Reps. Drew Dennert and Kaleb Weis always talk about supporting Northern State University; why would they sponsor this bill to endanger the lives of Northern students and faculty?
- House Bill 1234 is a sneaky CAFO-protection bill. It would divert the first $200,000 of contractor’s excise tax paid on building Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to the school district where the kids get to enjoy the smell of money wafting over the playground; then divert any additional CAFO contractor’s excise tax to a new state fund to support disbursements for the extraordinary cost fund for special education available statewide. HB 1234 is as fiscally unwise as IM 25, the tobacco tax for vo-techs that voters rejected last November. If we’re not going to put taxes in the general fund and make wise disbursements from the whole, then the special purpose for which we earmark tax dollars should address specific problems raised by the taxed activity. If earmarked at all, CAFO tax dollars should go toward environmental protection, not become a prop to schools that can then be used to demonize anyone protesting CAFO expansion (what? you don’t like CAFOs? But they fund our schools, so you must hate kids—barrr-arrr-arrr!).
- Senator Stace Nelson isn’t done trying to play doctor on women. He got Representative Julie Frye-Mueller to launch House Bill 1177, a revamp of his own failed forced-sonogram bill. Letting legislators tell doctors what to do is still a bad idea.
- Oh! And then Rep. Frye-Mueller split Stace’s forced fetal heart auscultation into a separate bill, House Bill 1190. Amping up fetal heart murumurs and forcing women to listen is more practicing medicine without a license.
Believe it or not, some legislators do come up with good ideas. Stay tuned for that list later!
Perhaps we could get one of these astute legislators to introduce a bill which would remove the desks from the legislative floors and put in a huge sandbox filled with neat toys like guns and anatomically correct dolls which might keep them so busy that they wouldn’t be tempted to tamper with intelligent life on the planet.
Freshman year of college is emotionally challenging and all kids aren’t ready. There doesn’t need to be wannabe cowboys wandering the campus with pistols in their pants and assault rifles under their beds. Guns aren’t tools of assimilation into adulthood.
I agree, Porter. Ammosexuals need to stay out of public Universities.
You have to admit, the CAFO tax is a brilliant (?) move. But what a can of worms it will open. What next project type will start asking for the same? A fiscal note would really be beneficial here.
You know, if they would tax these facilities as commercial entities, as some actually are, it would add to the tax base also. (They actually get a commercial water permit from the DENR.)
Since gun ownership/possession is actually in the constitution (which calls for it to be “well regulated”) shouldn’t any and all regulation of that constitutional right be done by elected officials rather than by unelected bureaucrats?
If the CAFO tax goes to the local district, wouldn’t that count as local effort and only displace state money going to that district to get up to the state formula total? That does not help local districts; it helps the state general fund. It more seems like a laundering of taxes: “going to education” seems to be the magic words to use when there is a need to increase state revenues.
Rorshach’s point is interesting. It is similar to repeated arguments over the years that Congress has unconstitutionally delegated too much lawmaking power to the various agencies created by statute to operate all parts of our government. This argument attacking various regulations and adminsitrative authority, while perhaps superficially appealing to some, usually has been rejected by the SCOTUS as an impractical impediment to the functioning of government. In the 1989 Mistretta case the Court explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine#Case_law
And, of course, the legislature lacks the power to direct or permit an agency to violate the Constitution. Hence, the rules adopted by the administrative agency, such as the Board of Regents, are, in legal and pracitical effect, rules adopted by the legislature.
I went to college in the 70’s. I knew a guy (Tom) who had a somewhat eccentric roommate(Dick) who did not like having roommates. Dick pulled a gun on Tom who promptly moved out. The dorm director confiscated the gun and held it in the office. Dick could check it out if he wanted to go hunting. Dick was not a hunter, only a little eccentric. He later graduated from college and I am quite sure this incident never appeared in a background check. A college campus is no place for a gun!!!
Takes 2, Sen. Nelson, as I’ve been saying. Where are your bills controlling male reproduction? Cant have those impregnators just running, willy nilly, across SD.
For Nelson, why not write a bill requiring total honesty from pols at all levels of Dakota politics. Guv elect Noem lied early and often about death tax and her family’s farm and Marlboro Barbie is sponsoring a new bill to eliminate death tax and he uses the same tired, debunked BS about farmers and ranchers having to sell the works to pay the crushing taxes. As it stands now very few people will ever have enough of an estate to pay taxes on at nearly 11 million dollars before the tax kicks in. Couples get 22 million exemption.
It takes 2 indeed! We demand equality! All decisions about abortions should be made by the unanimous decision of the biological mother and biological father. Politicians need to stay out of it!
Guess who’s name pops up in the opioid addiction crisis (Kristi is still hooked on meth-bathtub biker speed brought to us by the Sturgis Rally)?? The Koch Brothers of course, with recently established offices in SD. Billionaires family Sackler (Purdue Big Pharma) created oxicontin in the cancer pain field since patient-junkies (their own advertising lingo) die anyway! Richie Sackler is on Koch’s MIT Integrative Cancer Care Institute board. Let’s all give a big awwwwwwwww for Koch’s family losses to cancer, this the source of their empassioned philanthropy. Hey, I recently lost my significant other to pancreatic cancer so I can shout about it.
Rat bast*rd billionaires.
Sorry, Leslie. Love ‘ya. – Hey, Rat Bast*rd Billionaires … 70% tax bracket got it’s eyes on you. Even Republicans in the poll on FoxNews are for it.
Esquire, c. Glazeck Oct 2017
Hilarious yet again. Ryan tempting fate. Yikes :)!
Leslie, what are you talking about?
Porter, I truly hope that wealth disparity, newly magnified by the Trump tax cuts, becomes THE issue of the next election. Let’s see the religious stand with their leaders to say obscene wealth is a sin and that government need to truly be the stewards for the nation — not only the .1%
On the topic of billionaire philanthropy, although the dollar amounts given are staggering (albeit target to personal pet projects), the net wealth of those billionaires continues to rise.
I’d love to see an estate tax of 70% on billion dollar estates. I see no good argument in opposition, other than the obvious gripes. I saw the headline but haven’t looked into it. Any numbers regarding how many estates would be taxable? Couldn’t be many.
David has a wonderful, fitting suggestion – remove the desks for a sandbox with toys.
Such legislative tomfoolery is one huge reason the US is falling fat behind the world in infrastructure and primary education. If you don’t travel, you don’t see it.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/03/the-infrastructural-humiliation-of-america/
“well regulated” refers to proficiency and top-notch training when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You are welcome for the history lesson.
Bearcreekbat’s comment is interesting as well, but misleading as to my position. I have NOT argued that the legislature has unconstitutionally delegated too much authority to the Board of Regents, NOR that the Board of Regents has exceeded it’s grant of authority. My argument is simply that authority over the regulation of constitutional rights should as a matter of public policy be retained by elected officials rather than by unelected bureaucrats.
The legislature has the authority to delegate authority. Here’s the statute by which it delegated authority to the Board of Regents:
13-49-13. Government and regulation of institutions–Supervision of buildings and property. Unless otherwise expressly provided in statute, the Board of Regents shall govern and regulate each institution under its control in such manner as it deems best calculated to promote the purpose for which the institution is maintained, and shall have charge and supervision of all buildings and property connected therewith, and the construction of all buildings for the institution.
So Rep. Dennert’s bill would expressly retain the legislature’s authority to regulate the constitutional right to bear arms on state-owned university campuses. Essentially it would divest the 9-member, Governor-appointed Board of Regents of one aspect of the broad authority the legislature has previously granted to the Regents.
And let’s be honest here. If the Board of Regents were to permit guns on campus those same people who oppose Rep. Dennert’s bill today would be clamoring for the legislature to take away the Regents’ authority – by arguing that … elected officials rather than unelected bureaucrats should make that decision.
Since about 1939 ‘well regulated militia” has had no historical litigation definition. Admit Jason, historical militias regulated blacks. Trump is another Republican idiot blogging history lessons.
Must have been some pretty stupid judges to not know what “well regulated” meant when the Amendment was written.
The matter of bearing arms on campus is affected by implied and stated laws regarding the responsibility of institutions of higher learning to supply an environment in which the study and discussion of academic materials takes place without disruptive or distracting circumstances. The bearing of arms on campus is regarded as an intimidating circumstance which is contrary to the purpose of a learning environment. When the subject of bearing arms on campus came up in a student paper in one of my classes, the students concluded that they would walk out of class in which an armed student was present and file a complaint, and a suit, if necessary, that the institution failed to maintain the conditions for learning. That is why the Code of Student Conduct of the South Dakota Board of Regents contains the following prohibition:
“Possession of firearms, stun guns, tasers, BB guns, switchblade knives, fixed- blade knives with a blade length of five (5) inches or greater, or any item that is designed or used to injure or harm another person, fireworks, explosives, or dangerous chemicals on institutional premises or at institutional events, except as explicitly permitted by a Board Policy or an Institutional Policy…”
The violation of those prohibitions is considered:
“Harassment, which includes, but is not limited to: Conduct towards another person that is severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively and subjectively intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment that substantially interferes with the individual’s ability to participate in or to realize the intended benefits of an Institutional activity or resource…”
The question came up about bearers of arms as being a protection against an active shooter. The students concluded that anyone unstable enough to bring a gun to class would be regarded as a potential active shooter.
I think it’s time we require high school students to watch a second trimester D & E abortion in science class.
It appears many people don’t actually know how an abortion is performed.
Why are Democrats not transparent on abortion?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42996/watch-women-see-horrific-reality-abortion-these-frank-camp
I watched it in 8th grade.
“The bearing of arms on campus is regarded as an intimidating circumstance which is contrary to the purpose of a learning environment. ”
Says who?
What percentage of homes in SD have a gun in them David?
Says the policy I quoted. Guns kept in homes are totally irrelevant to the presence of guns bought onto a campus. That’s why educators want them to remain at home. They have no purpose or reason for being on campus.
It is sad and dangerous that so many men feel they have to carry a gun to be a man.
Not one problem that any college student in South Dakota faced on campus today would have been solved optimally with a gun.
Who wrote the policy?
Do they now there policy does not apply to somebody who is going to start shooting people on campus?
Most college students in SD grew up with guns in the home and aren’t “afraid” of them.
I can see restricting them in dorms because of shared space, etc.
Other than that, I see no need for restrictions.
On Ror’s and BCB’s very sensible and intellectually challenging conversation:
I wonder first, if it has ever happened in any state that the folks running the universities have been more pro-gun than their legislators.
It’s not like the Regents are a bunch of liberals. They’re all Daugaard/Rounds appointees, and they are almost all Republicans.
I am intrigued by the question of whether the Legislature should delegate regulation of basic Constitutional rights to non-elected bodies. I suspect none of the sponsors of SB 122 are really exploring such finer points of constitutional law; they just want more bang-bangs and another chance to attack higher education as a den of scrawny, trembling liberals who need a good scare.
Are Second Amendment rights the only rights that the Regents regulate more strictly than those rights may be afforded in the general public?
Cory,
It is sad and dangerous that so many men feel they have to carry a gun to be a man.
You left out women Cory.
Do you think Women carry a gun to be a woman?
It’s like the left doesn’t want women to defend themselves.
Are Second Amendment rights the only rights that the Regents regulate more strictly than those rights may be afforded in the general public?
Yes.
Due process in rape claims.
That’s why Universities are being sued.
Kathy, have we discussed that tax classification idea before? I’m glad you brought it up!
What is the fundamental justification for taxing farm land at a different rate from commercial land?
Btw, I used the wrong “their” at 21:31.
I don’t want Roger C to have to work too much.
O, when the local districts got the proceeds from wind farm taxes (prior to the 2016 funding reform that spread those funds out statewide), were those dollars counted toward local effort, leading to a commensurate reduction in state aid?
But here’s the thing, David. At least at some of the public universities, freshmen and sophomores are required to live in the dorms. The dorm is their home, and the Board of Regents prohibits adult students from possessing a gun in their home. So much for your argument of irrelevance. As a matter of public policy I don’t support the authority of unelected bureaucrats on the Board of Regents to prohibit me or anyone else from possessing a gun in my home or their home.
Cory,
The reason is commercial property income isn’t affected by weather, weeds, and bugs like farmland is.
Not all CAFO’s are just CAFO’s. They are family farms.
Cory,
Have you every been to a CAFO?
Have you ever been to a CAFO that also farms?
Rohrschach,
That argument is not mine. It is the argument on which the policy is based. And some campuses do permit students to possess firearms on campus. but they are generally prohibited from classroom areas. The policies vary from campus to campus. When I first came to Northern it was not uncommon to see pickup trucks with occupied gun racks outside the dorms during hunting season. After a student went on a rampage one night and blew out the windows of other vehicles, building windows, and street lights with a CO2 rifle, the policy was changed.
Also when I first came to Northern, the Student Association leased refrigerators to dorm students where they kept, among other things, their supply of 3.2 beer. A number of incidents and some changes in the law regarding drinking age ended that. Alcohol in the dorms was prohibited, largely because students who were at college to study were interfered with by those who weren’t. There were incidents of some students transferring and some parents withdrawing their children from college. The big one was an on-campus party that ended up with a young woman charging that she was sexually assaulted by three young men, who were immediately expelled and charged. One took a plea deal. One went home to Huron and blew his heart out with a deer rifle. And one went to trial and was acquitted. The University and the Regents had to confront just what their legal responsibilities were and how to discharge them.
The upshot was that the Regents’ and University’s primary responsibility was to maintain an environment dedicated to its purpose of study, learning, and teaching. That extended to all campus life, including the residence halls. The dorms were considered to be established as residences provided for study and the University had the responsibility and authority to place restrictions on them to meet that purpose. Students were notified that if they found the rules too onerous, they should live off campus. Alcohol and guns are irrelevant and often contradictory to that purpose, and so are subject to restrictions.
There is a lot of legal precedent behind the policies, but the one most often cited in my hearing was that if a reasonable environment for study was not maintained, we would get sued. I think we were after that disastrous party and some confidential settlements established the responsibility and the right to regulate dorm life.
Trump Inc. is a family business. Adding the word “family” has nothing to do with tax policy.
Al Novstrup’s amusement park is affected by the weather. Should that property be taxed at a different rate from other commercial property?
Instead of Jason’s top-of-the-head guess, let’s find some real information on why ag land gets a break on property tax:
CAFOs don’t seem to fit into those justifications. They aren’t open farmland; they are concentrated areas intensely developed with buildings and waste lagoons. They don’t invite housing development; they are set back from residential areas and subsequently deter residential growth and depress home valies. Their heavy trucks and more frequent shipments of product and waste put more stress on infrastructure than regular farms.
From that information, it looks like CAFOs should be asked to pick up the slack for the residential taxes they depress and the additional services they require compared to regular agricultural land.
Ror,
The dorm rooms are rental property and the college/Regents are landlords.
Just for clarification–Are you saying that a property owner who leases out a basement apartment in his or her home cannot have a no gun policy as a condition of the lease?
Again, I just want be sure I understand your point
kas Lis,
The regents are not landlords. They are property managers.
The South Dakota Citizens are the landlords and they elect managers (Legislature) to manage the property managers (Regents).
Funny
J-a-s-o-n doesn’t look anything like R-o-r
I wanted clarification of his point not a comment that didn’t deal with my question.
I pointed out your false statement Kas. You should be thanking me for the education.
Jason,
My mother always remanded me to try to be polite.
I’m 61 years old. Of my threescore years and ten, I’ve got fewer than ten left. I am hoping the Good Lord is merciful enough to give me an extra ten.
Life is far too short to deal with your efforts to start an argument. I generally scroll past your comments because they smack of someone looking to disagree and be disagreeable. I will continue to scroll past your comments, even those addressed to me.
I want to see Ror’s comment because he actually can disagree with someone and explain his point without being disagreeable.
Yeah Ryan you are probably right. Debbo did stop reading your taunting posts.
leslie, when calling for equality is considered taunting, something is wrong. Lots of racist, sexist folks are scared of equality, but I don’t think we should stop trying to get there.
How exactly does a cafo farm and what exactly have you observed the majority cement buildings doing that qualified as farming, Troll. This could be worthy of Ripley’s Believe IT Or Not.
I had the same thought as Kal, namely, Regents are landlords (the designation “property managers” doesn’t change the analysis), and as such have the right to set conditions for the lease of dormitory residents. The only problem with that analysis is that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent private landlord from restricting guns on their private property, but the Regents are not private landlords, they are representatives of the government, hence the 2nd Amendment limits their governmental policy making.
That is not to say that Regents lack the authority to make such restrictions, but only that their authority is not premised on nor justified by landlord status.
And Ror raises the more accurate question than legality of delegation, or even 2nd Amendment considerations, namely whether delegating the authority to the Board to impose such restrictions good public policy.
Given the typical lack of privacy in dorms, coupled with the obligation to protect the safety of all student occupants, restricting gun possession or ownership seems entirely appropriate and an example of not only good, but wise and necessary, public policy. In fact, it seems important enough to codify, rather than leave in the hands of administrators, who, as Ror points out may decide that no restrictions are needed.
As I read leslie’s comment, I saw no critic of or labeling of “calling for equality” as “taunting.” I read leslie’s comment as referring to statements about other commentors that instead of, or in addition to, addressing the ideas expressed in the comment, read like efforts to insult, negatively characterize, diminish, and/or dismiss a commentor as a person; i.e., argumentum ad hominem. Such statements fall within the accepted meaning of “taunting.”
https://www.google.com/searchq=taunting&oq=taunting&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
While leslie can speak for himself as to what he meant, I have understood most of his past comments on DFP to suggest he encourages any and all “calling for equality,” and will eagerly support any such calls he judges as genuine.
As one more off topic aside, sometimes “taunting” may be appropriate, while other times distracting or downright hurtful. In the later cases, it seems a rational response to stop reading such posts that use taunts.
The legislature has the final authority on the rules for South Dakota public schools.
Why is it so hard for Democrats to understand this on this board?
bcb – I’m glad leslie supports equality – I wish more people on this blog did.
As for taunting… You said, and I agree, that sometimes it may be appropriate, and other times it may be distracting or downright hurtful. The problem is the line between two varies wildly among the audience depending on the parties involved. I see lots of hurtful personal attacks on this blog that go unchallenged, and then the same 3 or 4 knights in shining armor who dish out nasty personal insults daily try to protect their “delicate” friends from differing opinions because these knights can’t help their chivalrous nature and their friends can’t justify their ignorant comments themselves.
I think folks who throw around taunts shouldn’t whine when taunted. That is – HYPOCRISY! I hate absolutely nothing more than hypocrisy.
Ryan supports equity (everyone gets the same) and thinks equity contributes to equality. Equity (when everyone gets the same) actually contributes to inequality.
Porter, and therein lies the rub – we really don’t have a fixed definition of “equality.” It seems to mean something different depending on context and who’s ox might be getting gored.
Regarding equality – bcb says “It seems to mean something different depending on context and who’s ox might be getting gored.”
YES!
Couldn’t agree more. However, porter doesn’t understand variables, gray area, nuance, circumstance, or anything else. He sees only gender and race, and makes his decisions accordingly.
I understand variables. Vary this … Ryan. You have the right to pick on women but if you do, men are going to stand up and call you a jerk but only on the internet. In real life you’re going home with a black eye. Knock it off, jerk.
There goes porter again, just can’t stick with the conversation being had.
I pick on women, true. I pick on men, too. However, I don’t pick on women because they are women. I pick on people for the things they say and do.
I treat people equally because I think all people deserve to be treated equally. You may think you are being a “good guy” with your idea that women need you to protect them from the consequences of their own actions, but to me you really are behaving in line with the historical patriarchal oppressors that women have begun to overcome in the last hundred years or so. You are a big part of the problem with your antiquated ideas of gender – do you get that? Of course not, but I tried.
Miss Lindsey Graham proves beyond a shadow of doubt, wingnuts don’t like a fetus after it is forced to be born.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/lindsey-graham-goes-trump-talking-points-better-kids-border-wall-new-schools/
MIke,
The School will be built.
What are you crying about?
Oh Miz Lindsey gets so upset!
If Lying Lunatic gets away with this unconstitutional act, a lot of things we normally expect from our democratic government won’t get built. Our government won’t be very democratic.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/florida-student-arrested-pledge-of-allegiance.html
11 year old arrested for refusing to stand for pledge. I guess freedumb isn’t wha tit used to be in Drumpf’s animal, kingdom.