SD Anti-Abortion Legislation & Consequences

Governments can fuss around with petty abortion restrictions up to a point. However, if they cross the line into the violation of a woman's 14th Amendment right to have an abortion, then they violate the Constitution and some federal statutes. The consequences, something that Bush Era politicians are not accustomed to facing, are severe. The law is harsh, but it is the law...

Read More Related Commentary Here:
http://www.populistamerica.com/commentary

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
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/...
 
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
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/...
 
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
 
http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/...
 
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.

Written by Stephen Neitzke, who welcomes your feedback. (email - stephen@ddleague-usa.net) Stephen is the founder of the Direct Democracy League, and writes a column at www.populistamerica.com.

Tags: 14th amendment, choice, constitution, democracy, freedom, populist, rights (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Huh?

I'm sorry... but you are a little confused.  First of all, ALL legislators and elected executives enjoy blanket legal immunity from their official acts.  For example, if a law is passed that is later found to be unconstitutional there is no criminal or civil recourse against those who sponsored it, voted for it or signed it into law.

Secondly, if what you are positing was true -- and it isn't -- then no legislator or elected executive could hardly participate in the process of enacting almost any law.  Your very fallacious argument that under 18 USC 241 legislators/elected execs could be prosecuted for "two or more persons" conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person" is breathtakingly lacking logic.  Isn't enacting laws fining or jailing convicted criminals by your reasoning thereby actionable since fines and jail terms clearly "injure" and "oppress" those they would effect and their very existence certainly does -- as criminal penalties are intended to do -- "threaten" and "intimidate".  Doesn't the death penalty "injure"?  Doesn't a new or raised tax "injure" or "oppress" someone.  Affirmative action laws favoring one group over another in hiring or school admission certainly is injuring and oppressing the groups left out.  The examples go on and on.  Your argument is just silly.

Thirdly, aren't you playing into the hands of those who are anti-choice.  Couldn't your reasoning be used to prosecute those who participate in the passage and enactment of abortion rights legislation.  Couldn't they argue that abortion rights law "injures" and "oppresses" the unborn child?

by So Blue 2006-03-01 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Huh?

The Following is a Rebuttal Directly from the Essay's Author...

**************************************** **********

My critic wrote -- 
> I'm sorry... but you are a little confused.  First of all,
> ALL legislators and elected executives enjoy blanket
> legal immunity from their official acts. ...

Here you are sitting on the greatest instant information search engine of all time, not researching your claims, not knowing what you are talking about, and personally attacking me out of your ignorance.  Bad form.  Shame on you.

"Legislative Immunity -- A legal doctrine that prevents legislators from being sued for actions performed and decisions made in the course of serving in government.  This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution, nor does it relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office, such as the nefarious activities of former Senator Bob Packwood."

That quote is from the NOLO web site at
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/ 8E90467F-4F3E-486A-B2AADDBCA56B369F/alph a/L/

Needless to say, 18 USC 241 violations are subject to criminal porsecution in federal court.  Also needless to say, we can hold the SD legislators and governor -- if he signs the bill -- responsible for their criminal conspiracy against Constitutional rights regardless of whether they knew they were breaking the law or not.

My critic wrote --
> Secondly, if what you are positing was true -- and it
> isn't -- then no legislator or elected executive could
> hardly participate in the process of enacting almost any law.
> Your very fallacious argument that under 18 USC 241
> legislators/elected execs could be prosecuted for "two
> or more persons" conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten,
> or intimidate any person" is breathtakingly lacking logic.

Of course, I just established that what I posited is, in fact, true.  My facts are accurate.  My statements based on fact -- which you seem to confuse with argument -- are true, and my arguments based on facts and truth are logically sound, not silly. 

My critic wrote --
> Thirdly, aren't you playing into the hands of those who
> are anti-choice.[?]  Couldn't your reasoning be used to prosecute
> those who participate in the passage and enactment of abortion
> rights legislation.[?]  Couldn't they argue that abortion rights law
> "injures" and "oppresses" the unborn child?

As a matter of fact, that has been one of the anti-abortion arguments from the beginning, and I'm sure you know it.  But those who freely use the abortion rights granted under Roe v. Wade, don't violate any law, and you know it.

Here's my summary of what Roe v. Wade did.  I'm sure that you can read this and sling around all sorts of wild-eyed claims.  But, be more careful this time.

"The decision in Roe v. Wade recognized a woman's abortion decision to be a part of fundamental personal privacy rights.  Personal privacy is a core right derived from and guaranteed by many provisions of the Constitution, regardless of the fact that privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution.  The abortion decision right is not open to challenge by state action for the first trimester of pregnancy.  It is not overshadowed by important state considerations -- the woman's health and protection of potential life -- until the fetus has life-sustaining viability, usually from 24 to 28 weeks after fertilization.  The moment that life begins is not an issue.  While the woman's personal privacy is her own, and not shared with the fetus -- prior to fetus viability -- the state has no compelling interests and the abortion decision remains the woman's right."

Before personally attacking me again, concerning the above summary, please read and study the Roe v. Wade decision.  You can find a copy of it on the FindLaw site at --

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge tcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol= 113

In the philosophy of law, there is a very old adage -- "We settle arguments based on facts with facts".  You might think of it in terms of getting all your ducks in a row -- before you attack.

Stephen Neitzke
Direct Democracy League
http://ddleague-usa.net

by populistamerica 2006-03-01 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh?

Your rebuttal is actually even more clueless than your initial statements.  No matter what you say, no matter what you misquote and clearly MISUNDERSTAND your initial premise is embarrassingly sophomoric and foolish.

Legislators and enacting executives have COMPLETE BLANKET immunity from civil and criminal action for what they do in that process.  Even your WAY off point quote makes MY point and proves yours wrong.

You foolishly quoted:

"Legislative Immunity -- A legal doctrine that prevents legislators from being sued for actions performed and decisions made in the course of serving in government.  This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution, nor does it relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office, such as the nefarious activities of former Senator Bob Packwood."

Do you see the key words???  Of course they can be  prosecuted for -- see your own quote -- "actions outside the scope of their office".. DO YOU SEE IT?

If what you are proposing was true NO ONE would serve in gov't.  Laws are often declared constitutionally unfit and almost every law injures, threatens or intimidates someone.

In the future when you attempt to futilely cling to a silly argument please do not use a quote that proves your own argument wrong.

Very simply, when a legislator legislates and an elected executive executes they are completely untouchable by virtue of their blanket immunity.

Otherwise why hasn't every legislator who has voted in favor of the death penalty been prosecuted?  The death penalty clearly threatens and intimidates and it absolutely injures!

Give it up... your argument was childish and silly...

by So Blue 2006-03-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh?

wow. It appears you're completely missing a comma. Legislative Immunity does not allow legislators to do anything they want. "This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution" It also doesn't "relieve them from for actions outside the scope of their office..."

These are two separate issues. You're combining them. With your way of thinking, I guess we can just Heil the entire government, because representatives can do whatever they want, and not be prosecuted. If, and I assume you are not able to do so, but if you can quote anything in USC that shows full immunity for illegal acts by elected officials, my response is simply this:

Such a law is unjust, unreasonable, and repugnant to the ideals of freedom. Only a fascist would support total immunity for the all-powerful state. Any such law must be repealed or resisted, or are we to be just as weak as the people in the 19th century who obeyed slavery laws - just because they were the law?

But, then again, I would be surprised if you found such a criminal law.

Tom Paine may have said it best...

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the People; it is an instrument for the People to restrain the government."

by populistamerica 2006-03-01 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? (correction)

last line, 1st paragraph should read:

"relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office..."

by populistamerica 2006-03-01 03:54PM | 0 recs
Silly, silly

I shouldn't be so harsh on you.  From your writing, legal and deductive skills you are obviously a young person trying to play with the big dogs.  When you get to high school study, study, study.

It is very cute that you miss the point that the statute you quote - a US code - was written by legislators.  The idea that you think legislators would author a bill that would subject them to criminal sanction for doing their job is just cute.  Keep studying and learning.  You'll understand some day.

by So Blue 2006-03-01 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Silly, silly

LOL -- Ahhh, Troll, your trollish repertoire is as limited as knowledge and logic.  You are persoally attacking a 60-something.  I earned dual majors in philosophy and history from the University of California over 35 years ago, with a personal emphasis area in the philosophy of law that has kept me active in political philosophy ever since.

Pity, if you were a normal person, you could have known why the SD legislators have forfieted legislative immunity with their blatant rejection of protecting SD citizen rights, blatant criminality against fundamental constitutional rights, and ommission of any legally redeeming graces in the anti-abortion bill.  Legislative immunity was never intended to cover blatant criminality.

And now I will not waste any more time with your trollish self.  Game over.

Stephen Neitzke
Direct Democracy League
http://ddleague-usa.net

by Stephen Neitzke 2006-03-02 01:11AM | 0 recs
It's the Reconstruction...

Apart from the application of these laws - which I cannot for the life of me see fit the case by a country mile, they do not date back to 1945.

Note 1 to this describes the tortuous re-enactment history of 18 USC 242. Its sister section, §241, followed a similar path, I believe.

Originating in 1866.

by skeptic06 2006-03-01 10:13AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads