In his excellent essay this week on rioting and South Dakota’s corporate fascism, Dr. David Newquist reminds us that Governor Kristi Noem’s rushed anti-protest bills don’t just threaten First Amendment rights. Senate Bill 189 and Senate Bill 190 may also violate the South Dakota Constitution, specifically Article 17 Section 3:
One law passed in South Dakota this year protects and promotes the interests of pipeline companies, SB-190. The law clearly declares that it conceives the purpose of the state to serve corporations rather than its citizens. The law is entitled “An Act to promote pipeline construction and fiscal responsibility by establishing a fund, to authorize a special fee for extraordinary expenses, to make a continuous appropriation therefor, and to declare an emergency.” It does raise some question about whether it reconciles with the State Constitution:
§ 3. Laws for benefit of corporation as conditioned on compliance with Constitutional provision. The Legislature shall not remit the forfeiture of the charter of any corporation now existing nor alter or amend the same nor pass any other general or special law for the benefit of such corporation, except upon the condition that such corporation shall thereafter hold its charter subject to the provisions of this Constitution.
The state has never let laws or any code of integrity interfere with its suppliance to corporations [David Newquist, “On the Efficacy of Riots,” Northern Valley Beacon, 2019.03.12].
Governor Noem has made clear with her private consultations and public statements that this bill is meant to benefit TransCanada as it builds its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline across West River. SB 189 and SB 190 appears to be special laws, benefiting one corporation (which happens to have contributed to the campaign of Kristi Noem and to the House GOP PAC whose members rushed to pass Noem’s anti-protest bills).
Anyone taking Noem to court over her corporate fascist legislation should consider lining that South Dakota constitutional prohibition on special laws right alongside the state and federal constitutional protections of free speech among the arguments against SB 189 and SB 190.
i have a button on my cap that iv’e worn for years to church & else where, it says “when fascism comes to america,it will come wrapped in the flag & carrying a cross”. it is starting to heat up !
Marvin, I remember that button.
It’s true. But I think we’re headed into a different, and far worse, fascism. The pipeline is an example of a new fascism, “transnational fascism.” The flag and faux patriotism are for the droolers who are too dumb to see past it. This fascism is multi-national. The modern corporation is a cancer on the world, and it controls political parties in every nation state. Noem and Trump are just a onvenient corrupt puppets.
Many in the thinking right were allied with many of us on the left in the late 70s and early 80s on this. I think once they see past the b.s., they’ll come around and resist this new fascism.
don, i hope you are right.the republic is in danger!
Don Pay and Marv Kammerer – two people who have a deep understanding of ethics and the constitution. I always appreciate and believe their perspectives on the issues. So good.
Cory, the cited section of the State Constitution prohibits special laws benefiting a corporation, but provides an explicit exception:
While I am not a supporter of this pipeline law I am a bit curious about your view of the nature of the constitutional problem – I am unsure of Dr. Newquist’s or your suggestion how the continued charter of corporation in question might not be subject to its compliance with provisions of the SD Constitution?
Would it be because Trans Canada is a foreign corporation with a “continued charter” controlled by a foreign country rather than by SD law? Or would the ability of SD to revoke Trans Canada’s authority to do business as a foreign corporation in SD fall with the concept of “continued charter?”
The best form of protest against the use of fossil fuels is to show that one can power their lives, including transportation back and forth to a peaceful protest, without the use of fossil fuels.
Let’s assume that 33 kWh of electricity are equivalent to one gallon of gasoline for use in an electric car. Americans in 2017 consumed 384.74 million gallons of gasoline per day. So we need to produce an extra 1.27 X 10^10 kilowatt-hours of energy on top of what we are already doing (assuming our present driving patterns).
This means we would need to build 1,058 brand new thermal power plants that deliver 500 MW of electricity and run them 24 hours per day. Thermal power plants are not 100% efficient, so instead of 500 MW you need a number greater than 1000 MW.
On average that would be 21 per state, but that would likely be lower in South Dakota.
This is equivalent to building 21,160 100 MW wind farms that operate at a 25% capacity (or 21,160 X (50 2-MW turbines) = 1.058 million new wind turbines), and it assumes that all of that energy is captured by electric car batteries, and it assumes no loss of energy due to transmission over long distances.
We only need to build 423 100 MW wind farms per state to go all-electric. That may be higher in South Dakota and the plains states because that is where the wind is.
Uff da!
Bearcreekbat,
I raise the question, not sure, as you point out, how that exception applies. The exception seems in conflict with Article 9 in this part of the Constitution:
§ 23. Private and special laws prohibited. The Legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases:
1. Granting divorces.
2. Changing the names of persons or places, or constituting one person the heir at law of another.
3. Locating or changing county seats.
4. Regulating county and township affairs.
5. Incorporating cities, towns and villages or changing or amending the charter of any town, city or village, or laying out, opening, vacating or altering town plats, streets, wards, alleys and public ground.
6. Providing for sale or mortgage of real estate belonging to minors or others under disability.
7. Authorizing persons to keep ferries across streams wholly within the state.
8. Remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures.
9. Granting to an individual, association or corporation any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever.
10. Providing for the management of common schools.
11. Creating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentages or allowances of public officers during the term for which said officers are elected or appointed.
But the Legislature may repeal any existing special law relating to the foregoing subdivisions.
In all other cases where a general law can be applicable no special law shall be enacted.
To see how far we have to go…South Dakota currently has the equivalent of about 10 100 MW wind farms, but that will almost triple to not quite 30 if the upcoming planned capacity is installed.
But that is replacing coal and providing new growth elsewhere in our regional economy. Unfortunately the number assigned to electric vehicle charging is zero because there are essentially no electric cars in the region right now to be recharged.
Dr. Newquist, section 23 #9 seems more relevant. Specifically section 23 #9 seems inconsistent with section cited in your article. I wonder if the two can be reconciled by interpreting section 3 from your article to apply to corporations in general.
Section 23 #9 contains a different rule since it explicitly prohibits legislation benefiting only an individual or specific corporation. If that is the case, then I would agree that there is indeed a significant section 23 #9 problem with this new legislation since it is aimed only at benefiting Trans Canada.
BCB, I like your question, and David, I like your response, reminding us the “special law” prohibition pops up more than once in the SD constitution.
Looking at Article 9 Section 23 Clause 9, is the “special privilege” the state’s exercise of its authority on behalf of TransCanada to protect the company from protest and to exact the costs of dealing with such protest from “riot boosters”?
BCB, that exception you cite in Article 17 Section 3 gets me wondering: is there any corporation operating in our state whose charter is not subject to the South Dakota Constitution? Is that exception just a statement that the corporation needs to be incorporated/chartered here in South Dakota? Or does it mean that TransCanada could say, “We’re not incorporated in South Dakota, so we don’t have to respect any rights granted to our workers on your soil under your constitution”? What does that exception really mean?
By the way, TransCanada’s 2018 annual report says (p. 2) the company plans to change its name to “TC Energy.” Says TransCanada, “The exceptional growth of our business has led us to embrace an opportunity to reinforce our position as a truly North American company.”
By another way, since 2002, TransCanada has been a partner in Bruce Power, Canada’s only private-sector nuclear power plant. Bruce Power generates over 3 gigawatts of electricity, 30% of Ontario’s electricity. TransCanada owns 48.3% of the plant.
I move to draft Marvin and Donald to march at the head of a 10,000-person column, alongside the tribal chiefs, to TransCanada’s first dig site in West River, present a cease-and-desist order from the Cowboy and Indian Alliance, and refuse to move.
Noem’s action is minor.
Since Trump got away with declaring an emergency for a border wall, and GOPs in congress stuck with him on it, he’s going to do it again. Within 2 weeks Trump will declare another national emergency to benefit GOP special interests – and probably himself. I’m not sure what it will be yet, but congress is so feckless and so unpopular that Trump has lackeys right now planning the next emergency to throw at them (and us). It’s coming. Wait for it …
Have they scheduled a date to start?
Not a fan of the draft, Cory. I’ve been on a three-year boycott of South Dakota. I don’t want to give my sales tax dollars to fund the state’s hate. I may have to break my personal boycott anyway. My high school class has a 50 Year Reunion in late July. So, we’ll see.
Charlene and Jim have to be there, too. Jay, and others from the old United Family Farmers would be great to have on board. It would be great to see some oldsters there from AIM, WARN, Black Hills Alliance, Black Hills Energy Coalition and South Dakota Resources Coalition, too. Marvin, do you know where Nick Meinhardt is?
Robert McTaggert has suggested numerous times on the threads discussing DAPL and Keystone XL that the Water Protectors and protesters should travel to and from protest sites in only transportation not powered by fossil fuels. Robert seems to think that this would bring more credibility to their issues.
The simple answer to why Indians don’t use electric cars and trucks is that they can’t afford them. Electric vehicles are still relatively new and expensive to people that live in Indian country.
Some that agree with Robert McTaggert have suggested that they should travel to these protest sites by horse. Horses aren’t a new idea and you can see in some news clips from DAPL where protesters were riding horses.
Indians like horses but very few own them, horses are very expensive to tend to and take cared of.
So, the next time someone brings up how Indians should get to protest sites, tell them to buy to water protectors a tank of gas.
Good answer Roger.
Complaining about how water protectors get there from the comfort of one’s home seems childish at worst, and patently unfair at best. The water they’re fighting to protect is ours too.
The more attention brought to the GOP attacks against free speech and the US and state constitutions the better. I’m very grateful for their efforts.
Oh, the fascists are just getting warmed up. Here’s what’s been going on in Frantic Flaccid Fool’s deministration:
“Rachel Maddow reports exclusively on details of a newly obtained spreadsheet kept by the Trump administration’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, led by anti-abortion activist Scott Lloyd, tracking the pregnancies of unaccompanied minor girls.”
Lloyd has spread sheets keeping track of the girls menstrual cycles so if they’re raped and become pregnant, he can delay long enough till it’s too late for them to abort. Handmaid’s Tale or Mengele looking for twins to dissect? Those people are Nazi monsters.
McTaggart – all eggs in one basket “analysis” are always bogus.
McTaggart – logic based on a faulty assumption can only be faulty logic. Faulty logic can only lead to faulty conclusions.
Dr. McT’s argument has come up repeatedly in the last 60 years. It seems to be one that resonates with those who have some special interest they are protecting. I find it rather boring, so I don’t usually answer it when Dr. McT trolls it.
The fact is that people live in the world as they find it, and try to change it. They do their best to create better ways of dealing with things, but that doesn’t mean they can’t use what means the world gives them to change it. Indian tribes traded for guns so they could rid themselves of the white plague. Slaves used whatever the master gave them to rebel against slavery. This was before Marx, who said that the bourgeoisie created the means of their own destruction.
It’s just a silly argument, not worth even this small effort to counter it.
Why can’t outside supporters invest in the clean energy infrastructure that makes the lives of said protestors better all year long, not just during a protest? Is that not a better outcome than violence?
A fossil fuel protest powered by something other than fossil fuels would send a very strong message indeed. Prove that it can be done, and more people will be willing to adopt electric cars and other similar technologies.
If you cannot live without fossil fuels, then the focus should be making the delivery is as safe as possible. I don’t have a problem with peaceful protest for clean water, or the support of infrastructure or methodologies to foster cleaner water. It is just that you cannot regulate things to zero risk and pretend that the product you actually use will be available whenever you want it.
Donald,
I have laid out how much energy we need to generate in order to displace fossil fuels completely. This is what you say you want to do. Please acknowledge the facts and form a viable solution. That is EXTRA energy on top of what we are generating today.
Any such protest that focuses national attention would be an opportunity to show that a viable alternative exists. How will that opportunity be used?
I suspect that you will want to build more renewables only, but we will also burn a lot more natural gas to make up the difference because consumers want energy on tap at all times. That plan will lead to more carbon emissions than today.
True, renewables plus gas emit less carbon than all coal. But it would be a Pyrrhic victory to say that we would be emitting less carbon than we otherwise would have been, while still emitting more total carbon!
Debbo,
The protestors would be trying to convince people who are not actively protesting to their point of view or to support a set of actions they would like to promote.
I have expressed my opinion as to what would make the greatest impact and move the ball forward with regard to climate change.
You are free to disagree with me in that regard (Richard, Roger, and Donald certainly have!).
Here is another reason to violate the rules, they do not apply to the rest of us when they are abused at the highest levels. In this case, the FAA and it’s failure to protect the public. If it had not been for Canada protesting the 787 Max, that flying coffin would still be in the air in the United States.
350 people’s blood on their hands, Boeing should be booted from ever having the public’s trust. trump as well for putting Wall Street above safety.
“As Boeing hustled in 2015 to catch up to Airbus and certify its new 737 MAX, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed the agency’s safety engineers to delegate safety assessments to Boeing itself, and to speedily approve the resulting analysis.
But the original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA for a new flight control system on the MAX — a report used to certify the plane as safe to fly — had several crucial flaws.” https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
Check this article out and then find a way to provide the necessary funding to those who have the will to protest corporate Amerika and its fake foreign lackey’s.
Richard,
“all eggs in one basket “analysis” are always bogus.”
You probably should take another look at the green new deal then.
What I haven’t done is figure out how much we could reduce this amount of energy. This includes reducing the amount of driving that people do, providing alternative means of transport (public transit, bike, walk), and perhaps increasing the efficiency of said driving (most likely through lighter/stronger vehicles).
Let’s say we can cut that energy requirement down by half. That is still the equivalent of 500 brand-new thermal power plants, or ~10,000 100-MW wind farms. Maybe in reality that is 100 thermal power plants and 8,000 wind turbines (for example). We have a lot of work to do in paying for that, and getting public approval for siting that new infrastructure.
I always underestimate how tightly Noem is wound up in Republican group think. Not only is protesting TransCanada a riot or riot boosting, so is any Democratic or democratic protest against Trump or any other Republican policy.
I guess if there’s no ideas to help folks, the best course of action is to scare the hell out of your tribe so that the tribe sticks with you. Machiavelli would be proud.
When you’re passionate about your cause and you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.
Roger,
Would you say this potential protest is really about fossil fuels, clean water, or something else?
The Keystone XL protest was and is about clean water, Robert.
Maybe, but I suspect it is about more than just fossil fuels or clean water.
Nevertheless, if it is about clean water only, and one is going to continue to gas up the truck or SUV, then the interest should be in the promotion of environmental monitoring and better methodologies for non-destructive and destructive testing of pipes and pipe materials.
I have invested in clean energy for years. My utility allows me to pay to draw a bigger share of my energy from a portfolio that is higher in renewable energy sources.
Also,I have invested in a various Exchange Traded Funds that hold portfolios in companies that produce clean energy or supply various clean energy technology to the producing entity.
If anyone has some money to invest, clean energy has been on a roll. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t tank, especially given the goofy governmental policies we’re getting out of DC. But Wall Street seems to be forward looking, and no matter what Trump does, they see coal as dead and wind and solar as “the next big thing.”
Below is a link to a list of ETFs for anyone interested. If you want to offset your carbon use and make some money at the same time, investing your own money in that technology and those companies using that technology is one way to do it.
https://etfdb.com/etfs/industry/clean-energy/
In the last protest, did people offset their carbon footprint that they accrued by similar measures? We’ll see if that occurs in the next one.
So if you are a renewable fan, great…you are subsidizing the renewable energy in the utility portfolio, which does make it easier for said utility to maintain or grow its renewable capacity. Remember, they only generate income when they produce energy.
The only issue I have with this approach is that carbon is still emitted from coal and gas back-up, and I would rather we simply not emit as much carbon in the first place.
“When you’re passionate about your cause and you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.”
So eloquent Roger.
Robert, it seems like you are trying to insist on perfection by the water protectors, else they should not protest. A perfect protest or nothing? I think that’s an unrealistic bar.
They are working from where they are with what they have. It’s not like they are flying in on private jets or driving Hummers and limos.
Your focus on their methods of transportation seems like petty distraction compared to the excesses of TransCanada and similar unconstrained fossil fuel businesses. I’m willing to bet that the very nanosecond more efficient, less polluting and affordable transportation becomes available the water protectors will snap it up.
In the meantime, the water protectors are not the issue. They’re the ones whose necks Noem is preparing to stomp on.
People can protest to their hearts content with the resources they have. But would you not agree that a demonstration of not needing fossil fuels would strengthen the message of any such protest?
If you are trying to high-five your colleagues instead of trying to convince people outside the echo chamber of the merits of your argument, then I guess it doesn’t matter what volume of fossil fuels are consumed during such an endeavor.
Robert, what I’m saying is that would be nice, but it seems awfully nitpicky and a misdirection from the Big Issue. Do you follow me? I’ve got your point. Do you have mine?
Agreed Debbo, discussion on how the water protectors travel is a distraction from the important issues of protecting our water.
When Indians can afford electric cars, trucks, or horses, that is what we will use.
In the meantime I’ll be a “riot booster” and not a protest planner or organizer.
Well, the big issue is neither clean water nor fossil fuels. It is an historical discontent that nobody has been able (or willing) to resolve to anybody’s satisfaction. The protest is just the latest vehicle to express the level of this discontent.
But if you do not want to go whole hog and be truly carbon-free, there are a few things that could be done. Maybe you need a different kind of ETF that would facilitate investment in clean energy on Native American lands, or some form of carbon offset, or support environmental monitoring activities. Do one big thing on-site that only uses renewable energy.
Meanwhile…a small victory for nuclear.
https://www.powermag.com/dominion-reaches-deal-to-keep-millstone-nuclear-plant-open/
Connecticut is keeping its only nuclear power plant operational for at least another decade. It produces 98% of the state’s carbon-free power, and about half of the state’s electricity.
“Not only does this preserve the vast majority of Connecticut’s carbon-free electricity, it preserves good jobs for the 1,500 women and men who work at Millstone and keeps 4,000 other residents employed.”
bob. i suspect you may be pro nuclear power. i wonder what do we do with al this unclean waste from such clean plants. it seems to becoming a major problem in areas that produces nuke energy, just wondering.
How did you guess I was for nuclear power ;^) ?
The waste today is being stored on-site in either cooling ponds or in concrete and metal dry casks. The waste is actually a solid…it is not a liquid green glowing slime.
There are these things called science and engineering that get applied in containing and monitoring such wastes. We face a choice today of the risk of one gram of plutonium escaping in the next 100,000 years, or emitting billions of tons of unnecessary carbon dioxide in the backup of renewables. Which makes more sense?
I believe there is a concerted effort to develop a temporary holding site in parallel with long-term storage at Yucca Mountain. There are several locations that have become de facto waste storage sites due to shutdowns of the nuclear plant and nowhere else for the waste to go, so they are trying to fix that with the temporary storage facilities. Since Yucca was first considered however, there are now a couple of alternatives to disposal that may be cheaper than Yucca.
“nuclear waste” is really a misnomer, so I will often use “spent fuel” instead. 90% of the energy of the original fuel still remains in said waste. We have opted for reasons of cost and nonproliferation to isolate the spent fuel instead of trying to recoup the lost energy. I would like to see us reprocess the fuel, which would reduce the amount that requires isolation, as well as the heat and radioactivity of the by-products. Moreover, I would like to build the newer reactors that are more efficient, walk-away safe, and consume more of the waste in situ.
And don’t ask anyone on this blog what is going to be done with wastes from solar/wind farms. Those will be much larger in volume and have interesting chemistries to deal with. And if we reduce that volume by burning the polymers and resins that make up the wind turbine blades…there goes your carbon savings up in smoke…literally.
Cory–would it be possible for you to find and publish the amounts of money that Trans Canada and any other pipeline-connected corporations and/or individuals have paid to our former Congresswoman, now Governor and state legislators in so-called campaign contributions over the past few years? Inquiring minds want to know.
I haven’t followed the latest machinations of the nuclear industry in Connecticut, but I suspect they finagled some subsidies from the utilities and state. Of course, ratepayers are going to ultimately pay. The three-year effort to corrupt enough people apparently worked.
If they were to shut down the nuclear plant, they would lose half of their electricity and basically all of their carbon-free electricity.
I suppose that there would be no cost in replacing half of their electricity. And of course it would be replaced largely by natural gas, so they would be emitting more carbon than they are right now. They don’t need to worry about any long-term costs with respect to carbon emissions do they?
Counsel Hanna:
It is indeed possible to find and publish the amounts of money that TransCanada and other pipeline-connected corporations have paid to our current Governor and our state legislators. It is also takes a lot of time and digging.
Finding pipeline-connected individuals is tougher, of course, since I don’t know who all works for the pipeliners.
According to FEC records, in the 2018 election cycle, TransCanada USA Services Inc PAC gave Kristi Noem $6,000 and the SD House GOP PAC $2,500. In 2014, TransCanada PAC gave Mike Rounds $2,500.
Far more active in South Dakota campaign finance has been Energy Transfer Partners, the Texas fellows who brought us the Dakota Access pipeline. The Energy Transfer Employee Management Company PAC poured $20.650 into South Dakota Republican coffers in the 2018 cycle:
In the 2016 cycle, Energy Transfer Partners spent $13,500 on South Dakota politicians:
In the 2014 cycle, a year ETP focused mostly on Pennsylvania, our Texas pipeline friends dipped their toe in our waters with $2,500 for Kristi and $1,250 for the SD House GOP Future PAC.
Those, of course, are only the direct contributions from two pipeline companies’ PACs to South Dakota candidates and the House GOP PAC. We would need to dig deeper for money from individual employees and stakeholders of pipeliners and oil companies and via hopscotch from PAC to PAC or candidate to candidate.
Sheila Kennedy reiterates why civic literacy is so very important for all Americans.
https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2019/04/pontificating-about-civic-literacy/
Mike, Sheila Kennedy is one of the top political bloggers. I know you agree, being one of the top political commenters. 😁
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-signs-executive-orders-making-it-tougher-for-states-to-block-pipeline-construction
I hope the courts put an early end to this nonsense. Americans have the right to protest to protect their property and the environment they , not oil company execs, live in.