Twelve of the newly drawn South Dakota Legislative districts have Republican primaries for Senate; fifteen have GOP primaries for House. I keep looking for signs that even one of the radical wingnuts whom Gordon Howie claims as members of his "conservative team" has what it takes to win an election. It's not happening in District 31. Florence K. (for McKarthy) Thompson isn't bringing the heat in District 30.
And then there's our friend and Gordon's, Steve Sibson, running again for District 20 Senate against incumbent Republican Senator Mike Vehle. I tried to give Steve some advice (I truly am a sucker for underdogs... especially conservative underdogs who might help me make Democratic mischief) on reading his audience and focusing his message on practical policy.
And how does he respond? By spouting needless bromides (or are they hydrochlorides?) like this:
... democracy is another one of those deceptive words. It is a form [of] socialism too. A Constitutional Republic would support all minority rights without the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments [Steve Sibson, comment, Madville Times, 2012.05.08].
Democracy is socialism. I understand that sounds good during the RNAD chant session at a Tea Party picnic. But most voters don't care about the practically meaningless distinction between the Republican form of government specified in the Constitution (Article 4, Section 4) and the fundamental American value of citizen democracy. Sibson doesn't just spit on that warm fuzzy feeling most voters get when they hear the word democracy; he kicks that feeling in its fuzzy groin by equating democracy with socialism.
Now Steve may have a useful point. I'm more than happy to point out to people that socialism done right could be very democratic. What sounds more democratic and just to you: all the power in the workplace concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy bosses, or decisions and ownership being spread out among capital and labor alike?
But that's not the point at which Sibby is getting. He wants to convince voters to reconceptualize their government so he can get rid of the 13th Amendment, 15th Amendment, and 19th Amendment. Abolishing slavery, allowing blacks to vote, and allowing women to vote—all unnecessary, says candidate Steve Sibson.
Now is Sibson really saying that he wants to bring back slavery and disenfranchise women and minorities? It's always hard to tell what Steve is saying. I might give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just stitching together another abstruse diatribe masquerading as heavy philosophy.
But if I were Senator Vehle, and if I were at all concerned that Sibson might be gaining on me, I would drop Sibson's bombs right back on him on one mailing to every Republican in District 20:
Sibson calls for a Constitution "without the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments." The 13th Amendment enshrined into law one of the historic achievements of Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, the abolition of slavery. The 15th Amendment assured former slaves and men of all races that they could have a voice in our democracy. The 19th Amendment extended the vote to women, our equal partners in building America. Sibson rejects those three great advances in democracy. I do not. I defend democracy and the right of all citizens to participate freely in it [fantasy campaign flyer for Mike Vehle, 2012].
Of course, such a flyer would only appear in Davison, Aurora, and Jerauld County mailboxes if Senator Vehle thought Steve Sibson had even a remote chance of beating him. Senator Vehle thinks no such thing. Nor do I, not as long as Sibby spreads nutty propaganda like his comments on this blog instead of demonstrating his ability to operate in the practical world inhabited by 99% of the South Dakotans whose votes he seeks.
Did you mean NARD chant session, Cory?
Do I have to come look over your shoulder at the library computer, Larry? ;-P
I would not discount young Mr. Sibby just yet. He has astute powers and may not be as insane as you think he is when it comes to politicking. If I could vote in District Sibby, I would very much consider having his signs festooned in my yard. If I had one.
In Sibby's defense, I'd like to point out that his specifically picking out the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments was in response to another comment saying he ignored them. His original post on the subject said he'd simply have the first 10 Amendments, and none of the rest.
I won't make any assumptions as to what he meant by that (to do without them we'd have to rewrite the constitution), but I think it's only fair to put his quote in context. The guy's easy enough to pick apart when you take his whole argument.
I'll add that, despite the arguments I constantly have with Sibby, I have a good amount of respect for him. He's a crazy conspiracy theorist and science-denier, and a massive Bible nut whose arguments are generally laughably easy to tear apart, and he is (in my opinion) thoroughly wrong on nearly every subject we discuss. However, he clearly does care about people, which is rare, and even while running for political office he remains outspokenly honest about his opinions. And for that he's earned my respect (though by no means my agreement).
I'm not convinced, Carter. In my experience with Sibby, I've found him so immersed in his shibboleth philosophizing that he forgets he's talking about real people. To win votes, you've got to talk to real people, not just the windmills in your head.
Besides, his response to Eve's question, in context, is wrong. The Constitutional Republic he celebrates did not protect voting rights for blacks and women. It allowed slavery. Deeming the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments unnecessary is not just reckless; it's false.
Oh, he will never win an election, and I'd never vote for him. He's crazy. But I like that he's honest, is what I'm saying.
Mr. Carter!!!!
You surprise me more than my good friend Bob does! I fear that after you and I were an asshat and a hat the other day, I have found that you may be a pretty swell fellow after all (for a libby.) We (you and I) do seem to share certain common sense points of reason. And Mr. Sibby would do well to profit from our words, deeds, and hats. But I fear he has become too insane.
Cory, I'll admit that Sibby was wrong regarding his constitutional republic. As I said, I consider him wrong on most subjects. I don't know him enough to say that he is not racist, misogynistic, or not in favor of slavery, but it seems that he is none of those. If I were to assume (which I will), I would say that he said that out of ignorance, or without thinking it through, not out of any desire to reintroduce slavery.
But I shouldn't speculate. I'll let Steve answer the question.
Once again, I'm not saying he was right. I just think his original post and context-based follow-up, versus simply an out-of-context comment, is more easily defensible, and allows him to clarify, or recant, as opposed with being stuck with a "pro-slavery, anti-women" label. I don't like taking things out of context on either side of the fence. It doesn't seem fair.
Unfair reading: that's part of my point here, Carter. Opponents will not always treat a candidate's controversial statements fairly. A candidate needs to either avoid such statements or be ready to educate voters in clear, concise terms in language that will resonate with them. Sibby does neither. Declare democracy socialism and three crucial Amendments superfluous, and you will get killed in most American elections.
Of course, you'll also get killed by being wrong on almost every issue.
I stayed up late on the twitters watching earth haters in #coleg filibustering civil unions, not gay marriage, mind you, but contract law.
Wow, and and I thought South Dakota was dysfunctional.
RT @Cunning Linguist †@WTFcolo
.@COHouseGOP “@amaeryllis: Show me on the doll where other people’s happy civil unions touched you…†#coleg
Sibby is devolving.
His is a runaway mythic mind with a bogey man hiding in every shadow.
And the hardest of these for him to see is the one that haunts his own.
Steve is always raking over the coals of the past in a kind of "coulda-shoulda-woulda" guilt trip, hand-wringing, fear-driven hysteria, instead of taking stock in the real world and what's going on in the here and now and laying out a clear, reasonable plan to move forward.
He will be the last to admit that it is precisely thinking like his that brought on the crises we are experiencing in the present.
As far as people goes, it's not that he doesn't see them or care for them, it's just that he anthropormorphises and amimates everything, creating scapegoats and saviors along the way. Heroes and villians.
In his world, there's nothing any of us can do about anything, it's all up to Jesus and the Devil. We just have to decide who we believe in, and if we make the wrong choice there will be hell to pay.
He is adament, for example, that critical thinking is a tool of Satan, and is thus opposed, not only to science, technology and logic, but also to reasoned dialogue. If you make a point with him, he assumes you are somehow demonically possessed and that the evil forces have just gotten the best of him. He then responds roughly as do people in vampire movies, holding up crosses and wearing garlic around their necks.
Interestingly, Steve isn't alone in this reactionary mindset, nor is his mode of thought necessarily wrong for our species. It has in the past, served us well (for more on this I recommend reading http://www.deadlypowers.com/ ). It is time we became conscious of the downside of these mythological survival strategies. Past time.
I for one don't recommend playing with this kind of fire, Cory. These people need therapy, not encouragement to run for office. In fact, just back Sibby's intensity off a couple of clicks, and I think you'll agree that we have enough people who think like him in office already.
And a lot of others who are afraid to offend people like Steve for fear of losing their vote. I say it's time to stop the madness.
• Sibby for State Hospital •
"The Constitutional Republic he celebrates did not protect voting rights for blacks and women. "
The Declaration makes it clear, we have God-given rights. Slavery is wrong, and denying women the right to vote is wrong. The First 12 amendments were to add natural rights to the Constituion. That should have been enough, but the Supreme Court rules blacks were not person, but property. It was the failure of the Supreme Court, not the Constitution, that sent us to war and then amendments, that at the end of the day, has destroyed the original Constitution. For example the 14th has completely destroyed the 10th and states rights, religious liberty as stated in the First Amendment. We now have a New Age Theocracy being established that will issue in the New World Order and then world-wide tyranny. But first America has to be brought to its knees as it refuses to pass UN reforms that will set up the NWO. I hope I don't live to the day where I say I told you so.
And thank you Carter for appreciating one who sacrifices self in order to say the truth. Now if you will just believe the truth. Clearly Cory and Fleming are lost causes. Their hatred for Christians have messed them up badly. Such is the result of the New Age Theocracy.
Gawd....
"Jesus loves me this I know
That darn darky’s gotta go!
Save our country with ammo
‘Cause Jesus tol’ me must be so!"
--Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.
I rest my case.
"Their hatred for Christians have messed them up badly. Such is the result of the New Age Theocracy."
I forgot, that goes for you too Larry.
See how it works? If you try to talk Steve into getting help for his delusions, he frames it as your being a Christian hater. 100% nut job.
Actually, I'm going to side with Steve on this one. Having just read the Constitution and first ten amendments (unless I missed something major), it's pretty clear that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not, at any point, approve of slavery, nor take away the rights of black people or women.
It does say that escaped slaves can't vote, but it doesn't say there must be slavery.
That said, a lot of the later amendments are really good, so getting rid of them is not anywhere close to the answer for anything, and I really don't understand what problem Steve is trying to fix there. As Bill has said, it seems like something of a bogey man.
Most of the problems with encroaching fascism that I see in the US government stem from ignoring the amendments (like the right to a speedy trial, and requiring a warrant for arrest), not from having too many of them.
Carter, we need an amendment that specifically abolishes slavery, otherwise it's legal to have slaves.
Carter, what the 14th amendment does is apply the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to the states, which nullifies the 10th directly and the others indirectly. It took military pressence in several several states to force their ratification process. Some say it never was ratified. Not sure about that, but it would be worth researching, but as you say, what can we do about it now.
We really don't. We don't have an amendment that specifically outlaws murder, and yet it's not legal to murder. We don't have an amendment that specifically outlaws molesting small children, and yet that is also not legal.
I would challenge you to find a reference that states that everything that is not specifically outlawed in the Constitution or the Amendments is legal. That's not that case.
I'm not saying we should get rid of the amendment. It's not doing anything bad. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says slavery is legal, so passing a federal law against it would have the same effect.
Well, I didn't read the 14th Amendment (I intended to, but then I was distracted by a comedy article and forgot about it), but the incorporation of the Bill of Rights is essential. We are a nation, after all. There's no call for one state to provide other rights than another. If the states could all pick their own rights, Alabama would probably declare eating food to be the right of white people, and no one else.
As I said. Many/most/all of the amendments are very good. I'm merely asserting that slavery itself isn't allowed by the Constitution, as many seem to be implying.
Carter, you may want to look into the memberships of Freemasonic lodges during the founding. How many allowed blacks and women? You also may want to look into the Freemasonic involvement in the slave trade.
Gawd, part n....
Seth Tupper gives shout-out to Sibby on Bill Janklow's idea of public radio!
Slavery was a legal institution when the Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights was written around it. There is a huge difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a State or Federal Law, Carter. Huge.
Recall that in the Preamble the intention is to create a "more perfect" Union. The Bill of Rights is as perfect as the States would allow at the time. It is a work in progress.
The UK abolished using various Acts, and yet slavery is no more legal in the UK as it is here. An Act of Congress could outlaw slavery just as well as the Constitution has. Just because something was legal when the Constitution was written does not mean that a Constitutional Amendment is required to make it illegal.
The founders specifically delayed making a call on slavery, but they never said, "Any laws regarding slavery must be passed as Constitutional Amendments", or anything like that.
Sibby is quite correct (as odd as that sounds) in stating that slavery and the lack of rights for blacks and women were all upheld by Supreme Court rulings, not by the Constitution.
And yes, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are both works in progress, I agree. And yet the Constitution quite clearly says that everyone was created equal, and and all free people have a right to vote. An Amendment to the constitution declaring that blacks and women also have the right to vote is effectively redundant, as the Constitution covers them, already. It's the Supreme Court who didn't uphold their rights.
"An Amendment to the constitution declaring that blacks and women also have the right to vote is effectively redundant, as the Constitution covers them, already. It’s the Supreme Court who didn’t uphold their rights."
Sorry, Carter, but here you are wrong: the rights of blacks and women were not upheld by PEOPLE, actual legislators and poll workers and society in general. In the South, first there was slavery and then Jim Crow laws that prevented blacks from voting (this is the reason for the 15th Amendment - which, if you'll notice specifically did not include women). There were also various specific things that were done at the polling station to make it difficult if not impossible for blacks to vote (this is the reason for the 24th amendment - poll taxes were used in the South specifically to deny blacks the right to vote). Women were simply denied access to the voting booth at all. In other words, if they walked in to claim their "constitutional rights", they were firmly escorted out, and often arrested. As women tried to get the vote, only the Western states - Wyoming, then Colorado, then Utah and others - allowed women to vote in the late 1800's. (It's interesting that the liquor lobby were among the leaders opposing women's right to vote.) Many states (including New Jersey) had constitutional amendments prohibiting women voting. Finally, in 1920 the 18th Amendment passed, and women could vote nationally.
These amendments are not redundant; if they are abolished, then states, counties, cities, and towns can - and undoubtedly will - go back to upholding whatever prejudices they deem appropriate. Please remember that Rand Paul, that champion of libertarianism, believes that the Civil Rights Act went too far in making it illegal for someone to deny selling food to a person based on their race. Don't tell me that without these amendments, everything will be fine, and everyone will follow the constitution as it's written. Interpretation varies widely. That's why we have to have laws, amendments, and regulations to keep our rights intact.
Once again, I would stand by saying that an act of congress, a public law, would have the same effect. There are similar laws mandating equality for minorities elsewhere in cases that are less black and white (pardon the pun). A federal law is not optional. States cannot simply ignore federal laws, and a law enforcing voting rights would be much easier to uphold than any other equality law, since there is no real gray ground. Women are either allowed to vote, or they're not. There's no "Well, women can mostly vote the same, but not quite, and we can argue that this individual woman does not have the same qualifications as this man" like there are in, for example, income equality issues.
Going back to my murder and pedophilia example from earlier, Utah (for example) could not just say one day, "Murder is totally okay here, you guys", and then start gunning people down from the windows of the Court House. Similarly, were voting rights enforced as a federal law, a state could not just say, "Women can't vote because it requires them to leave the kitchen" and expect to get away with it.
As we've seen countless times, the Constitution and the Amendments are subverted all the time. If the government didn't want women to vote, it could find a way to stop them.
That said, I remind everyone that I never said we should get rid of that amendment, or any amendment, merely that adding women's voting rights as a Constitutional Amendment was not the only solution to the equal rights problem, and that other solutions would have been equally effective, making Sibby technically not wrong.
As an aside, a beneficial addition to the Constitution may be a glossary of terms outlining the meaning of words like "everyone" which some people, historically, have had a hard time understanding, although this would present it's own set of ridiculous problems. Maybe we should just scrap the Constitution and write a new one.
Can you show us in the Constitution (other than perhaps in the Amendments) where it says that "all people were created equal," Carter?
I can't seem to find it.
Exactly, Eve. The intention of the Constitution is to "secure" rights. (i.e. in order to take them away, you have to pass another Constitutional amendment had have it ratified by the states. As per prohibition and the repeal of same.)
I may have been thinking of the Declaration of Independence, there, Bill. My apologies.
However, it does state that the rights and privileges of citizens will not be impinged upon (or some such). Since women have always been considered citizens, then the Supreme Court was incredibly wrong in their decision not to allow them to vote, and must have intentionally misunderstood the meaning of the Constitution in their decision. Not allowing women to vote could be done by similar means, today.
Nowhere does the Constitution define who, exactly, gets to vote other than saying that representatives in government are to be chosen "by the People", but it quite clearly implies that People = Citizens. Any other definition is, as I said earlier, and intentional misunderstanding of the terms.
Carter, when our public officials take the oath of office, they swear to uphold the Constitution. That's why it is the Supreme Law of the land, The strongest possible protection of rights and equally applicable in all states. Your "murder is okay here, boys" scenario is currently being tested any number of ways. Death penalty, Stand Your Ground Laws, etc. It would be great if Capital Punishment were Nationally outlawed, but it will take a Constitutional Amendment to do it.
Otherwise, it's subject to laws of the States.
In theory, under the "stand your ground" law in Florida, two guys (enemies of one another) could go out into the street, each carrying a weapon and point it at one another.
Then because each felt threatened by the other, they could each shoot the other. If one of them lived, s/he be exempt from prosecution because of the law. (...see current Martin/Zimmerman case.)
My point being, if you really want to be sure a right is enshrined, write it into the Constitution. Then (at least in theory), no one can mess with it.
As we've seen with Guantanamo and NDAA, the Government can circumvent the Constitution whenever it pleases. Acts of Congress and simple actions by the government have impeded nearly all of rights in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps you're right that an Amendment is the "safest" way to ensure equality, but I don't think it's much safer than a normal federal law. Both of them get tossed to the wind whenever it suits the government. If the government decided that women shouldn't vote tomorrow, they wouldn't be able to vote, and all the Constitutional Amendments wouldn't be able to stop them.
I'll give in on the Amendment issue, although I will maintain that just because something is an Amendment doesn't mean it's a secure issue. I also maintain that the only real solution is a new Constitution with a glossary of terms included.
We watch it unfold again as the President defines his personal opinion and his detractors cite a tenth amendment separation.
Hey, heaven is a polygamous place for Mormons: it's not impossible that Gov. Romney would call for marriage equality for all men...even if it means having 72 virgins awaiting us after we die.
Women?
What an honor it would be to spend eternity granting men their eternal reward.
Carter, yes. That's why "we the people" must be vigilant. It's only our government if we continually take ownership of it. ...and why people saying our votes (and our Democracy) don't make any difference drive me bonkers. The "Democracy" part of our "Republic" makes ALL the difference.
Sibby is especially blind on this one. Which is why I marvel at why he ever runs for office. Exactly why is it that anyone would ever vote for a person who thinks your vote doesn't really mean anything other than a ticket into the Republic's elite?
My opinion, Bill, is that the whole "voting" part may not help much even if more people start to vote. The people we need are too radical to get elected, even if everyone starts to vote. It's not just people not voting, it's our society at large. As long as most people are mostly selfish, and as long as "socialism" is still a swear word to most people, we won't get anywhere.
Look at what happened in the 60's? Socialist hippies were swarming the nation, and then the 80's came and they got old and became Republicans, because once people have money, they suddenly don't want to share.
I'm beginning to think that this decade is going to be our last chance to set things straight the good old democratic way.
I hear you, Carter. (...not all of us old hippies turned Republican, brother ;^).
Carter and Mr. Sibson, the Declaration of Independence states "All men are created equal" - and the writers meant exactly that. It did not mean "and women, too," because women were not considered citizens in the 1700s; women were legally considered the property of their fathers or husbands. They had no right to vote; they also had no right to property. The Married Women's Property Act wasn't passed in 1882 in England; until then, upon marriage everything that a woman owned became her husband's property, and he had the right to do anything he wanted with it.
When Abigail Adams wrote to John Adams at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands," she was serious. John Adams replied in April 1776, "As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh...Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems." It took tremendous efforts and almost 150 years to get women the vote. I for one will fight tooth and nail to keep any and all suffrage amendments in the constitution, because I know they are needed. Study the history: Life with the 19th amendment beats life without it by a long shot. At least, if you're a woman.
Sorry, I meant that Abigail wrote that "remember the ladies" letter in 1776 when John Adams was at the Continental Congress, not the Constitutional Convention.
Oh, and just in time for all those who say, well, it's all covered, check out the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson on FOX News, lamenting the "mistake" of letting women have the vote.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/
I agree he's crazy - but he's getting national attention. I'm keeping the constitution I have, thank you.
I'm with you Eve. Except I think we should add to it. I really do like some of Larry Sabato's ideas here:
http://amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm
Those masculine systems sound good. I hope the penundulum is swinging back in that direction these days.
Mr. Sibby = Not Wrong
I'm told that is "an irrational equation that is hard to wrap one's mind around"
I'm with you Eve. Except I think we should add to it. I really do like some of Larry Sabato's ideas here:
(For some reason, every time I try to post a link to his site, Cory's software here won't take the post. To see what I'm referencing, google: "23 Proposals - A More Perfect Constitution, by Larry J. Sabato")
[CAH: Sorry about that, Bill! Inexplicable filter behavior; I have freed said links from the spam-box.]
Grudz, isn't it time for you to change your depends or something?
I'm with Sabato's ideas, mostly. I disagree vehemently with mandatory service in the Armed Forces, however. Requiring impressionable youths to join a group that will spend two years instilling them with unquestioning obedience to the government and military? No thanks.
Carter, I figured you would like some of the ideas. His book is quite good, and he's mostly just wanting to start the conversation that everyone, for some reason seems afraid to have.
If I recall, his suggestion on universal service wasn't necessarily military. There could of course be other options... like Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc.
Bill, you know darned well that I only wear those at night and on long car rides.
I'll take a look at the book if I get the chance, Bill. Thanks for the tip.
I'll admit I'm not terribly well-versed in non-military service, though I tend to shy away from any form of government-mandated service, as it tends to smack of indoctrination to me. It's not that the organizations themselves are inherently bad, it's that youth organizations funded by the government tend towards pushing the agendas of said government. They might instill in youth the attitude of helping those in need, but if you combine that with instilling hyper-conservativism or unbending religious "morality" (such as Rick Santorum possesses) then everything could go quite wrong.
I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, however.
LOL.
And that's perfectly fine, too. I am not ashamed much.
Don't make me tell about that story you shared from Christmas '04.
Probably not a problem, Carter. I understand that the Military doesn't really want to have a draft. And I can certainly understand why.
Oh go ahead Grudz. What the heck. We like to watch you hallucinate.
Christmas, 2004, my friend Bill couldn't take it any more. And I share this only with his permission, as he told me this in a state of drunkenness that goes beyond his norm.
Bill was so pissed at the Christians that year, something about what that grinning, new, young Governor had done that really thumped his onion into split pea soup. Bill up and left for one of those south american countries that shouldn't be called any sort of american, really.
Turns out, there's even more Christians down there. Bill tried to get some of the locals to throw out their gospel teachings and replace them with some kind of a ultra militaristic medieval cult. To what end, I have no clue, as Bill never disclosed what he was up to. He may not know to this day, but this is what he said.
So he's out handing his literature to the unwashed masses, and he runs into a Catholic bishop emeritus who had been fasting in a park in the capital city to call for peace and reconciliation in some province immersed in a conflict over the Vatican's decision to put the diocese in the hands of an ultra-conservative Catholic order. Or some such ultra-stupid non-sense. (I forget some of the details, and Bill was slurring a lot when he was trying to explain all this to me.)
So this guy, this bishop emeritus guy, is wrapped in a poncho and wearing a woolen scarf, a Fudd hat, and gloves, despite the sunshine in the park where he is camping out, because he has lost a buttload of weight in 15 days of fasting and can't shake the cold.
Bill sees that this guy is so pasty and his eyes are dialated, so he took the guy's shoes away and ran back to his hotel giggling all the way. The next morning, it turns out the shoes are the wrong size, so he fries an egg in one of the shoes, and then TAKES IT BACK TO THE GUY for Christmas breakfast.
Now that's sick, man.
Also, Bill once considered joining the Masons.
At a recent forum in Rapid, I was shocked by the arrogance shown by the 2 incumbent Representatives: Gosch and Conzet. Conzet kept rolling her eyes and making little comments. During the session, I wrote both many times and never got any response. I have read some of the nasty emails people have gotten from them. Yesterday, I did something I did not think I would ever do. I registered as a Republican to vote for Jeanette Deurloo. I may not agree with her on many things, but I am tired of the good ole boy, I am better than you attitude from these legislators.
Why are there so many Larrys?
I don't know how I attract them. It's not my aftershave.
nor mine....
So many Larrys but no Darrells?
They just don't say anything, Michael.
[Michael, Carter, that's one of the funniest tag-team lines I've heard in this comment section. Thank you.]
Carter, I'm pleased to see your semi-acquiescence on the importance of the amendments at issue here. You are right, the government can still try to circumvent the Supreme Law of the Land. Amendments don't perfectly secure rights, but they are the strongest protection we have, and the easiest standard to which common citizens can appeal in a court challenge to government mischief. Eve is right to be worried and vigilant, and we are right to offer her and all of our sisters the best protection possible, the 19th Amendment. Ditto to our black brothers and sisters.
The Declaration, even if we could rewrite "all men" as "all people," has no legal binding force. It's great oratory, literally revolutionary, but it doesn't win a court case.
Steve, you've met my wife. You know I don't hate Christians. And you know that line won't win you any votes, either. Are you running to win, or are you running to make speeches? (Even if the latter, you need better speeches.)
Grudz. That was delightful. We need more yarns from you, man. You are truly one of a kind. LMFAO
Oh, I don't think we should rewrite the Declaration. That wouldn't serve any purpose at all (except to reassert our independence from those darned Limeys). I think we should rewrite the Constitution. It's all old and out of date. We can talk all we want about how the founding fathers left it intentionally vague so it would age better, but aging well doesn't mean aging indefinitely. Even fine wine goes bad after two and a half centuries.
Look at what happened in the 60′s? Socialist hippies were swarming the nation, and then the 80′s came and they got old and became Republicans, because once people have money, they suddenly don’t want to share.
NO, NO, NO! Not all of us became Republicans, heaven forbid! I am as independant as ever! There are more of us too, just wish I could locate them and change SD to a blue state.
There are alot of us who went into positions to help people, but became somewhat disillusioned and found other careers. No one makes alot of money in social work, teaching etc. We make a living and some of us contribute to charities or volunteer because we know they are underfunded and understaffed.
I just want to see grudznick's or Steve Sibson's own versions of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I might even donate to Cory's tip jar for that.
So many Larrys but no Darrells?
Sorry, I started laughing so hard that I spit my whiskey all over the keyboard! A little humor in a serious conversation is always...damn... there must be some adage for that.
“I think we should rewrite the Constitution. It’s all old and out of date.â€
Carter said: "We can talk all we want about how the founding fathers left it intentionally vague so it would age better, but aging well doesn’t mean aging indefinitely"
It has been many years since I have read the Constitution, so a few days ago; I kind of fast read it because I have a real problem about the division of church and state.
From the bit I have watched on... the History Channel and read about our founding Fathers, there has been a lot of poetic license with the interpretation of the Constitution. I am very scared of the religious right taking over this country. I always thought this country was based on religious freedom, but it is getting less and less. I do not want to have the government based on the doctrines of any church, but seeing that more and more. That is just my opinion.
To my knowledge, the division of church and state was originally intended to keep the state out of the church, not vice versa. Unfortunately, it should have been vice versa, as you've just pointed out. The problem, obviously, isn't in the government having good ethics, but that, as you pointed out, the religious right is increasingly free to take over. What it comes down to is not so much religion itself getting into the politics, but the idea of morality.
I'll segue briefly here into my problem with "morality". The problem with the idea of morality is that it isn't definable. Morality isn't just "not killing people", but it's "doing what's right". For you and me, this could be treating everyone with kindness. For the guy down the street, it could be curb-stomping gay people because they're trying to corrupt society. I prefer the term "empathy" because it implies kindness and attuning yourself to other peoples' feelings without the problem of personal definitions.
Anyway, back to the point at hand. When religion and politics mix, religious morality inevitably gets mixed into the politics. Murder isn't wrong because it's horrible, it's wrong because Jesus said so. You can't rape babies because Jesus said raping babies might not be so hot an idea. You'll got o Hell for it, so it better be a law. It's only a short downhill ride to things like "Gays can't get married because Jesus says it's bad" and "The Bible said women are property. Who are we to contradict the Bible! Get back in the kitchen!".
Certainly these problems would arise occasionally without religion, but when it comes to religion in politics, I see more problems than benefits. Non-religious people can be just as good as religious people, but at least there's no risk of the whole "God's will" thing when politicians can't bring up God in their job.
"To my knowledge, the division of church and state was originally intended to keep the state out of the church, not vice versa.'
Explain this to me, as I thought it was the opposite.
To Larry's comment above: I find it interesting that Gosch and Conzet, both of whom first got their Pierre jobs by gubernatorial appointment rather than winning an election, should exhibit such arrogance. Entitlement mentality much?
Larry, I would love to throw out the arrogant Good Old Pols club and replace them with better reps. But the opposition (Tea Party, hippies, whoever) needs to offer credible candidates who can respond to real issue, not people shouting Glenn-Beck karaoke. Has Deurloo said anything intelligent in her forum appearances? Does she show any sign of being able to set aside her radio-coached talking points and have a civil conversation about practical policy?
PrairieLady, most of the ideas involved in separation of church and state stem from the ideas of religious freedom that came over with people escaping the English Civil War. While much of it was as they teach it in school (people hoping to avoid oppression), much of the oppression was due to the oppressive nature of those religions. A majority of the religions (such as Puritanism) that we consider "super religious" today were also considered "super religious" back then, and, in my understanding, many of those religions were being persecuted because of their desire to persecute others.
Either way, that's where the founding ideas of religious freedom came from. That continued on until the United States became a nation. The Constitution makes a passing reference to not requiring any office holder to hold a particular religious belief, but that's it. Letters between Jefferson and Madison, and from the two to others, discuss the state not becoming involved with religion, but exclude religion not being involved in the state. The Treaty of Tripoli does say that the United States does not support a particular religion.
Anyway, the Separation of Church and State in the "Don't get your religion in politics" sort of way didn't really come about until the mid 20th century in a few Supreme Court cases. There's really nothing substantial at all providing for the Separation of Church and State past the idea of Freedom of Religion, which implies that the State won't get mixed up in your church.
Coming full circle, I'll return to the issue of amendments from earlier. Having previously called 13th, 15th and 19th amendments unnecessary (and subsequently recanting), I'll swing all the way in the opposite direction (not like that) in a possibly hypocritical statement and say that we should absolutely have an amendment that removes the church from politics. Since the Bill of Rights already establishes that the State can't mess with religion, we should also have an amendment establishing that religion can't mess with the State.
"Since the Bill of Rights already establishes that the State can’t mess with religion, we should also have an amendment establishing that religion can’t mess with the State." I totally agree, Carter. When you hear the radio and televangelists telling people who to vote for and spreading hate (against gays, Muslims, etc.), when you hear elected representatives talking about how their religion says this or that should be illegal (usually something to do with women's access to birth control), and proceeding to work at making it so - there has to be a way to stop it. Your religious freedom stops when it interferes with my personal liberties, just as my religious freedom stops when it interferes with your personal liberties. And that really needs to be hammered home.
A friend of mine said that she thought the real problem was they stopped teaching civics in school back about 20 years ago. (Civics, not the Bible, Mr. Sibson) The whole purpose of civics was to explain how government worked, why it worked, and what it was for: to protect the rights of the individual, within the framework of a government that provided the safety, security, infrastructure, and greater needs of the population at large. Considering the current hostility towards and fear of government, I think she's right on the money.
Carter, the separation of church and state is being violated today as the New Age Theocracy (born out of Fremasonry) is being established in public schools. If Christians don't like it they still pay the education tax (just like the Baptists still had to pay a church tax to the Church of England).
Anybody research the Freemasonic postion on memberships toward blacks and women?
"“Since the Bill of Rights already establishes that the State can’t mess with religion, we should also have an amendment establishing that religion can’t mess with the State.â€
Not true, the First Amendment says "Comngress shall not pass", not the "states shall not pass". It was the Supreme Court in 1947 using the 14th Amendment that now force states to be bound by the First Amendment, which has caused the violation of religious liberty of today and now is allowing the establishment of the New Age Theocracy in the government schools.
"The whole purpose of civics was to explain how government worked, why it worked, and what it was for: to protect the rights of the individual, within the framework of a government that provided the safety, security, infrastructure, and greater needs of the population at large."
How can there be "the rights of the individual" if there has to be "greater needs of the population at large"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc
"How can there be “the rights of the individual†if there has to be “greater needs of the population at large�"
Mr. Sibson, it's called majority rules, but minorities have rights. It's called making sure everyone survives this rough world. It's called paying your taxes to make sure there are roads, bridges, CDC, and other necessities of life that no individual can provide. That's how good governments work, on the national (and on the family scale). When individual rights always trump everything else, what you end up with is a failed state, like Somalia. No one can have their way 100% of the time, in a government or in a family, and if they do... THAT'S tyranny.
South Dakota has been a failed state since Bill Janklow was elected to statewide office:
http://www.stateintegrity.org/southdakota_story_subpage
Wait.
Hold the phone...
Sibson just said that the States have the power to violate people's First Amendment rights with impunity and that it is only the Federal Government that is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
Are you serious, Sibby?
Bill,
Remember that Sibby's Constitution doesn't include the 14th Amendment
Another example of how there CAN be “the rights of the individual†if there has to be “greater needs of the population at largeâ€, is in a neighborhood. You have the right to play any kind of music you want - but not at a sound level that blasts into my house, especially at 3 AM. You have the right to have as many dogs as you want - but not to let them run all over my property, destroying my garden. You have the right to own as many guns as you want - but not to shoot squirrels on my property. If our neighborhood (where you and I both live) needs a new sewer system to prevent flooding, we are all - including you - going to have to pony up money via taxes to make that happen. Are you starting to understand the concept?
LK, yeah, I know! Sibby's farther out there than I ever imagined.
"Sibson just said"
I didn't say it, the First Amendment says it. And it is not "Sibby's Constitution, it is our Constituition, our "social contract".
So Mr. New Age Theocrat Bill Fleming, prove this wrong regardinbg New Age Priestess Alice Baily:
When he was Secretary of Defense in the early-1960s, Robert McNamara prayed to the full moon along the Potomac River, according to journalist Edith Roosevelt. The Lucis Trust endorsed McNamara's tenure as head of the World Bank - which is hardly surprising, since Lucis believes in the Blavatskyian "Great White Brotherhood," which is consistent with the neo-malthusian aim of the International Monetary Fund to exterminate darker-skinned races.
Not only does Bailey explicitly seek to destroy the nation state, which she equates with the "idealism" of the Age of Pisces, but in her 1954 work Education in the New Age, she also endorses Nazi eugenics and sex hygiene to purify the race.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_lucytrust06.htm
Is that your read then, Sibby? That the States or individuals can voilate people's 1st Amendment rights with impunity? If so, then what's the big beef when the SD legislature or Cory or anyone tells Stace Nelson or you, or anyone else to shut up, sit down, and go home?
"Is that your read then, Sibby?"
Again Bill, it is not "my" read. It is a stated Constitutional fact. Can't you read English? The original Constitution has been destroyed by the amendment 13 going forward. That is what I said, that is what has happened, and it is now history along with our freedoms.
Yes, I can read, Sibby. I've just never heard anyone make that assertion before... that it's up to the states (and not the Fed) to protect the liberties secured by the First Amendment. Do you know of any States that don't?
Ah, I see now. New understanding from the Sibmeister. Without the 14th Amendment, Sibby's take could, and apparantly was, sometimes successfully argued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
Thanks Steve!
Sibby: Women have not been historically allowed to be regular Freemasons, although I believe that's changing. I don't know if blacks were ever barred, but I doubt they climbed the ladder far.
As for all the rest of what Sibby has said, Bill, I think we're better off just ignoring him. "Don't feed the trolls" as they say (even though he's not exactly trolling anyone). He's something of a conspiracy theorist. He's like a cross between Ron Paul and David Icke.
And yes, Bill. Without the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to individual states. I think Sibby might be confused and under the misconception that states are nations, and that the United States is like the European Union, or something.
You want me to prove there's no such thing as religious racism even among non-Christians, Sibby? No thanks. That would be a fool's errand.
"He’s something of a conspiracy theorist."
Carter, this is straight from the Lucis Trust (ALice Bailey's New Age Movement) web site:
This is a time of preparation not only for a new civilisation and culture in a new world order, but also for the coming of a new spiritual dispensation.
Humanity is not following an uncharted course. There is a divine Plan in the Cosmos of which we are a part. At the end of an age human resources and established institutions seem inadequate to meet world needs and problems. At such a time the advent of a Teacher, a spiritual leader or Avatar, is anticipated and invoked by the masses of humanity in all parts of the world.
Today the reappearance of the World Teacher, the Christ, is expected by millions, not only by those of Christian faith but by those of every faith who expect the Avatar under other names -- the Lord Maitreya, Krishna, Messiah, Imam Mahdi and the Bodhisattva.
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/world_goodwill/purposes_objectives
Now from Matthew 24:
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
So Carter, go ahead a mock Jesus, the King of conspiracy theorists. Or was he a prophet?
Steve, so what if that's what somebody said? I'm not hearing anyone saying they believe in that here. Only you accusing people of believing it.
It's the same as my insisting that you are a Lutheran. Prove to us that you are not. You sure sound Lutheran to me. (See how it works? You can't.)
Alice Bailey was an occult leader, Sibby. You might as well be saying that we all worship Aleister Crowley. No one cares what occultists say or do, because they're crazy and believe in magic.
As for Jesus, I don't think there is any god for him to be the son of, so he wasn't that. Same thing with prophet. No fate, no prophet. That leaves Conspiracy theorist, which I doubt (although it's possible, I suppose. I didn't know the guy). If he actually went around claiming to be the son of God, then maybe he was a con man, like Joseph Smith. Maybe he was a crazy hippy (he looks like one in all the paintings I see, except on the crucifix where he looks like a New Age Pagan Sex God). Maybe he didn't even claim to be the son of God, and other people added that for him. Maybe he was just a nice guy who went around teaching people to be decent to each other.
As a non-believer, I won't pass judgement against the guy, because I don't have any primary sources. He seems like a pretty cool guy in most respects, but maybe he was a jerk. He seems like a crazy person in other respects, but maybe he was totally down to earth. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. No reason to judge a person you don't know anything about, one way or the other.
What I do judge is how people act in his name. Some people use him as a beacon of good, and try to act in good, empathetic ways because they think that's how he would have done it. Great. I'm glad that Jesus was around for those people, because they might do some good for humanity.
Other people use his name to murder people and as an excuse for bigotry. For them, I regret that Jesus is even a thing people no about, because otherwise they might not be such giant dicks.
It's not what Jesus did or did not do. It's not who he was or who he was not. It's what people do with his name that matters to me.
Oh, wait. Scratch that part about me being a non-believe. I forgot that I'm a New Age Pagan Sex Worshipper. I guess I believe in like Frigg or Odin or something.
" No one cares what occultists say or do, because they’re crazy and believe in magic. "
The Lucis Trust is a United Nations movement. It is part of the environmental movement. Wake up. Get out of it. You all have been warned. It is now your own fault that you have deceived into Satan's "Plan". You all should now know better.
Hey now. I've read Paradise Lost. Satan didn't seem so bad. He just wanted to be treated fairly. Isn't that what we all want in life?
Also, the Lucis Trust is only has roster-level consultative status with the UN. That means basically nothing, Sibby. It's not a "United Nations Movement". It's an NGO that the UN has recognized as having some amount of expertise with something that is possibly good for the well-being of the world, and occasionally doing something in line with what the UN likes. Again, it means basically nothing. It's like winning the "Participated" ribbon in a grade school talent show.
Alice Bailey? Sounds like a moonbat to me. Not interested.
And Steve says that banning slavery destroyed the Constitution? Wow: it just gets deeper. I think Steve is deliberately trying to reduce his vote count to ten, just so he can carry on his persecution complex. He doesn't want to win.