SD Anti-Abortion Legislation & Consequences
by populistamerica, Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 06:30:06 AM EST
Read More Related Commentary Here:
The moment that the governor of South Dakota signs the anti-abortion legislation just passed by the legislature, he will create a conspiracy that violates citizen rights. That is, he will become a constitutional criminal and perpetrator of a federal felony along with every legislator who voted for the unconstitutional and illegal anti-abortion legislation.
There is a 1945 federal statute that makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire aganst citizen rights as defined in the Constitution and laws. It is 18 USC 241. It says, in part, "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; ..."
Womens rights to have abortions under Roe v. Wade are established rights tied to our Constitution's 14th Amendment liberties. Violating those established rights creates a clear illegality that cannot be brushed aside by some zealous group trumpeting " values".
For the short text of 18 USC 241, see the Cornell Law site at
For this violation of 18 USC 241, the governor -- if he signs -- and every legislator who voted for that illegal legislation can and should be criminally prosecuted in both state and federal court, regardless of the fact that he/she is an elected official.
The prosecutions could and should begin immediately. If they do not, then the South Dakota constitutional criminals are being unconstituionally protected from being held accountable for their crimes. That would be a violation of the Constitution's rule of law, as well as state- and federal-level obstruction of justice.
Getting, holding, and improving citizen rights was the reason for the existence of the United States. We've allowed money-power to drive us a long way off from our rights. It has to end soon.
Then there is federal statute 42 USC 1983 -- civil action for deprivation of rights. The statute applies specifically to state government officials and employees. The governor -- if he signs -- and every legislator who voted that illegal anti-abortion legislation can be sued in federal court for violation of 42 USC 1983.
The class-aciton lawsuits against all of the South Dakota constitutional criminals should begin immediately. Damages sought should be astronomical.
For the short text of 42 USC 1983, see the Cornell Law site at
The use of unconstitutonal statute law to overturn citizen rights has been going on for several decades -- in state legislatures and in Congress. The incidence rate of such governmental arrogance and criminality has been steadily increasing across the nation.
It is way past time for Americans to stop money-power's corruption tactic of using unconstitutional statute law to overturn our Constitutional rights. It's always done for the benefit of money-power, at the expense of ordinary people. The divisive abortion issue, of course, regardless of its clear moral conflict and many moral warriors, benefits money-power by keeping the people divided against themselves. Where divisiveness causes social, economic, and political chaos -- where there is no significant unity among the sovereign people -- money-power can more easily work its many corruptions. Money-power has a long and deep history with the chaos tactic, beginning with elections shortly after the Civil War when politicians and the class-race elite howled, "Vote as you shot".
The illegal anti-abortion legislation in South Dakota is perhaps the most flagrant Constitutional rights violation in the history of state legislatures.
In South Dakota, where the people can already speak for themselves through I&R petition processes, there is simply no reason to retain the mega-corrupt, partisan, bicameral legislature. Retaining the Senate is enough. The people can be a 2nd legislative house as needed.
Nebraska has been successfully using a NONPARTISAN UNICAMERAL since 1937. That's 69 years.
For historical details of the 1934 citizen-proposed law that reduced their partisan bicameral to a nonpartisan unicameral in 1937 -- and kept it safe from gerrymandering -- see the Nebraska Legislature's own site at
The people of South Dakota should use the illegal anti-abortion legislation as reason enough for reducing their corrupt bicameral to a nonpartisan unicameral. One or two constitutional amendment initiatives is all that it will take.
If South Dakota judges reject the constitutional amendment initiatives seeking to establish a nonparitisan unicameral legislature -- before the initiative is voted on by the sovereign people -- then they are unconstitutionally performing "binding judicial review" on proposed law. No US constitution defines the judicial power to include binding judicial review of proposed law. Imagine a judge ruling that a legislature cannot vote on one of its proposed laws. Binding judicial review on any proposed law is a direct violation of state and national constitutions.
Such an action against citizen-porposed law violates the state and federal constitutions, 18 USC 241, and 42 USC 1983. Any state-level judge involved in such an unconstitutonal action rightfully belongs in federal prison, stripped of all his/her social, economic, and political power.
I mention the possibility of binding judicial review squashing the move to a nonpartisan unicameral because state-level judges in all the I&R states have been doing such things to citizen-proposed law for a hundred years.
Binding judicial review of citizen-proposed law in the I&R states -- too often used to unconstitutional ly delay, alter, or reject petitions with content offensive to money-power -- has been a major line of defense for corrupt national policy. It has frequently stopped state- level citizen lawmaking from entering the political debate of national issues in which money-power corruption wants a specific outcome. Citizens in many states, for example, have watched arbitrary judicial rejection of citizen-proposed law for sales taxes to replace income tax. Such a "progressive" tax policy -- taxing the high-dollar luxury-item spending done by the superrich -- is offensive to money-power.
We are in the Bush Era of "values" overwhelming rights. Anti-rights "values" are burying too many of our rights, freedoms, and 14th Amendment liberties.
The rigidity of anti-rights value systems is horrific. We will have to soften the rigidity of those who hold such "values" or we will be in great danger very soon. Such rigidity has already taken us into one civil war. Perhaps it is already too late to escape from the next one. However, we do not have to accept this system that maximizes lawlessness and rights violation. Demanding lawfulness, adherence to the rule of law, and the minimizing of corruption still seems to be our best chance of avoiding civil war.
For the past 69 years, Nebraska has demonstrated that nonpartisan unicamerals dramatically help the sovereign people to minimize corruption in government. Just the absence of the "conference committee" -- often used by corrupt politicians to reverse the consensus of open deliberations, or to add provisions that could gain no approving consensus on the floor of either house -- eliminates a huge amount of corruption.
The rigid -- who demand lawlessness, anti-rights value systems, the elevation of individuals above the rule of law, and the consequent maximizing of corruption -- should be put under the strong thumb of the our law. Ridding ourselves of the massively corrupt major political parties with nonpartisan elections and nonpartisan unicameral legislatures will be a good start in controlling those who would kill our rights to have their "values".
Time for we the sovereign people to stand up for our rights, before we lose them all. We have the power. We are the sovereign here.