- Mar
7
2013
Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) is peeing in the punch at the bipartisan kumbayah party being held for the still-morphing Senate Bill 235, the omnibus corporate welfare/ education/ infrastructure/ housing bill. He tried Tuesday to bring the bill into conformity with the constitution, which says that no law shall embrace more than one subject. But as we saw with the Governor's criminal justice omnibus bill (this year's SB 70) and the big education-wrecking bill we referred to death (last year's HB 1234), no one in Pierre really cares about that argument.
House Speaker Brian Gosch (R-32/Rapid City) rejected Rep. Nelson's attempt to divide SB 235 into five separate bills, which would have defeated the whole bipartisan purpose of wedding things Republicans like to things Democrats like to pass the whole package and prevent a nasty referral of the same corporate welfare proposals that South Dakotans killed last year. That rejection precipitated this yummy exchange between Majority Leader David Lust (R-34/Rapid City) and Rep. Nelson:
Bill sponsor David Lust responds to Nelson’s actions: “I commend the Speaker for his flexibility and generosity in our time giving it to people who are clearly not prepared as we came to the floor today.”
Lust’s response clearly angers Representative Stace Nelson.
“It’s not this good representative’s fault that we’ve got a hobgoblin Frankenstein monster of a bill with as much pork in it as possible to present to this body today,” Nelson says. “Each one of these items, as we know for a fact—there’s separate bills already out there that have been combined into this. Bottom line is, South Dakota does not allow omnibus bills” [Victoria Wicks, "Legislator Says Business Development Bill Unconstitutional," SDPB, 2013.03.05].
Rep. Nelson pressed his dissent on SB 235 by filing another formal dissent and protest yesterday. Unlike his dissent and protest of cheese-subsidizing HB 1060, Rep. Nelson's SB 235 protest carries no Democrat signatures, just eight fellow members of recalcitrant mostly rump Republicans (but Brock Greenfield, too?). And unlike his earlier protest, his SB 235 harangue does not appear to have made the House Journal for March 6.
Hmm... with end of the session approaching, is the GOP leadership deciding they don't have time to follow the rules and deal with Rep. Nelson's hijinks?
49 Responses to “Nelson Constitutional Protests of SB 235 Omnibus Bill Fall on Deaf Ears”
Now with Dictator Daugaard on board with SB235, the SDGOP RINO Establishment will agree with Cory's label, "rump Republicans". Sadly it will again be the good people of South Dakota who will again take it in the rump as South Dakota becomes more and more a state controlled by the central planners of the New World Order. Most are slaves for the corporatists.
The obvious solution is to initiate a court case in the hope of eventually having the Supreme Court rule on this passage of our state constitution. As you noted this has been going on for years, legislative leaders and the governor support it and the only way to prevent it is to have the third branch of government weigh in.
You go Stace! Maybe the rest of the people in Pierre have a disease called,"dnac"! Didn't ask constituents!!! Highly contagious with no cure!
To dimiss Stace's actions as high jinks is irresponsible. I think a court case might be necessary and perhaps yet another referendum is in order. Some of the representatives thought this bill was the lesser of two evils, but it was still evil and as long as you countenance evil because you might get a little kick back you are doing wrong. When the education block, who spoke in favor of this bill returns to the legislature next year because they lack funding, I will not have the sympathy I had this year. They lost a lot of South Dakotans on this.
As long as this education can support French teacher, they have plenty of money...and now they go into bed with a bill that will continue to support the French cheese maker.
Do you oppose all foreign language education or just French?
Nick, have you read the Biblical account on the Tower of Babel? From a secular point of view, if we do not have enough education money to teach English, why spend money on foreign languages? Why spend money on the Spanish Emersion program in Sioux Falls where they are now going to build a new building to house the New World Order program? What is wrong with letting South Dakota be South Dakota?
Education was doomed in this bill - as anything else the people wanted. There will be pork for economic development. SB235 is junk!!
When the bible was written, South Dakota was still a garden.
Three more hate groups have joined Dakota Voice and the FLDS in South Dakota while Montana lost three:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=SD
Thesis: Fascist based monopoly capitalism
Anti-thesis: Marxist based socialism
Synthesis: SB235
This is how Hegelian dialectics create "junk".
Right, if only all those Babel guys would have spoken English, they would have built that tower all the way to heaven, right Sibby? (...every time I read the Sibsonian, by brain starts to fizz a little...)
Sibby,
You better work on a time machine to take you back to Babel so you can learn read Hegal in the original German because the English translations you've been reading have left you more confused than usual.
No deaf ears here. The reason these Constitutional objections so quickly fall flat is because the Supreme Court has already decided on this passage in our State Constitution and we have all been shown that ruling and decision. I have it in a file at home or I'd site it more precisely here. Basically the ruling is that a single subject must be expressed in the title "while the provisions to accomplish the object involved in that subject may be multifarious."
So, for each of us it becomes a judgment call... can one connect the dots between the title and multifarious sections of the bill? Last year I could easily see the various sections of HB1234 contributing directly to student achievement. Most people reading this will disagree on that assessment. With SD235 it's the same deal only even more clear cut in my view- the sections are interrelated and interdependent components of a bill aimed at driving economic development in SD.
Stace is right, various parts of it presently are and could easily be separate bills. But why not make the same objection on the GBill which is our general appropriations bill? That could easily be broken into 100 different bills though it's all about where we will spend money. Prisons, schools and state parks are in the same bill there - very multifaceted. What we are seeing in SD isn't the earmarking and pork packing we see in Congressional Bills.
The opposite of a hobgoblin frankenstein monster bill are a hundred disjointed stand alone fragments of public policy that demonstrate no one is thinking comprehensively or working together. Absent that big picture comprehensive approach these bills die quickly and individually in committees that can only see trees not the forest. If one aspect fails, it's inter-related and interdependent counterpart- even if passed -can't accomplish the intended objective.
An recent example of this can be seen in Sen Begelka's multi-bill approach to eliminating and replacing the contractors excise tax. Unless you talked to Begelka himself you had no idea his bills were related and interdependent. In fact, many scratched their heads entirely confused as to why a conservative was proposing certain tax increases. His plan was to kill a major tax.
Wait, the Knights Templar spoke French, right?
And the Masons spoke... um... Scottish (I think).
So there you go, Sibby, no speaking French, and no drinking Scotch.
"Only by having the wole world speak English will we avoid the New World Order." — Sibbatolah Kokameini
(I need more coffee...)
Studying a foreign language will help you better master your native tongue.
Rep Hickey continues to carry water for the Establishment GOP. The approach is to give each faction of special interest a piece so they can call it "bipartisan". The common thread is collectivism, which means the establishment (pun intended) of the New World Order, or in Biblical terms...the Beast of Revelation. Good luck with that Pastor Hickey.
LK, why can't you follow simple logic?
Flemming, where did I say that the whole world should speak English? You are confusing me with teh source of the New World Order...the British Anglo Saxons. See Cecil Rhodes, John Ruskin, the Council of Foreign Relations, Quigley (Clinton's mentor)(Clinton: Oxford Rhodes Scholar)...then perhaps we can have a constructive conversation on what is really going on, instead of you making false allegations.
Freezing rain and wind forecast for Mitchell: Sibby goes redrum.
I can follow logic. It's illogic that I have trouble with. When one attempts to combine Hegel's dialectic with a J.T. Chick comic, I see nothing but illogic.
"PINE RIDGE, Dakota du Sud-- Plus de 100 membres de la tribu Sioux Lakota Oglala et des alliés, parmi lesquels des membres de Deep Green Resistance, se sont réunis à nouveau ce jour pour une ronde afin d’éveiller la conscience des conditions désastreuses dans le village de White Clay à la frontière du Nebraska, un hameau qui compte quatre commerces d’alcool près de la Réserve Indienne de Pine Ridge où l’alcool est prohibé."
http://www.chrisp.lautre.net/wpblog/?p=1607
"Studying a foreign language will help you better master your native tongue."
"It's illogic that I have trouble with.'
Yes LK, the first statement is illogical. Want to give more of a clue on your Chick link before I print it out and work on digesting it?
What I find illogical are those who complain about crony capitalism coming in support of SB235.
Which gun companies are you working for, Sib?
Please call the South Dakota Senate chambers TODAY 773 3821 and leave a message for Senator Frerichs, Olson and Rave to support the Bob Mercer amendment to SB235 . It is crucial we do this today.
Amendment and Mercers explanation is below. Also email them at sen.frerichs@state.sd.us sen.olson@state.sd.us sen.rave@state.sd.us
Also call the House Chambers TODAY 773 3851 and leave a message for Rep Lust, Cronin and Bernie Hunhoff to support Bob Mercer amendment to SB 235. Also email them at rep.lust@state.sd.us rep.cronin@state.sd.us rep.hunhoff@state.sd.us
Late breaking news It appears that $7 million of general fund dollars will be put in SB 235. Do we not have a stronger need for that general fund money for education and medicaid funding instead? Please call and email asap to add the “Mercer amendment to SB 235
Here is the amendment and the reason why we need it.
The Board of Economic Development may not take action to award any loan, grant, or other form of financial assistance that involves public funds unless the action is taken at an official meeting for which notice has been posted in accordance with the provisions of § 1-25-1.1 and notice has been published in at least three newspapers of general circulation in different parts of the state. The notice shall be published at least two weeks before the meeting, shall contain a narrative description of the proposed actions, and shall also state where and when the hearing will be held.".
re Pierre Politics
« Some new political flavors in the Legisla
To whom it must concern Bob Mercer Column
This is an open message to the Legislature and the governor regarding a specific piece of the economic-development proposal that will be considered in public for the first time today.
A public hearing should be made part of the process for any reinvestment payment being considered by the state Board of Economic Development as an incentive to a business project. The taxpayers and the general public of South Dakota should have the right to offer their opinions on whether the reinvestment payment should be granted and in what amount if any. The comments should be allowed to be made in writing or to be made in person at the hearing. The reinvestment payments are a discretionary action involving the disbursement of public funds and the public should have the right to comment. As part of the process, a hearing notice should be published in an official newspaper serving the state capital, and the notice should be further distributed to all newspapers and news broadcasters statewide for their optional use, as well as to any interested party seeking to be on the distribution list. The board’s decision also should be published as part of an official notice distributed in like manner statewide.
Second, the economic-development legislation being considered this week should have added to it a formal notice and public hearing process for all actions involving the state Board of Economic Development regarding decisions on REDI loans and other forms of financial assistance that involve public funds. The public should have a right to know about these proposed actions, in which public funds are being disbursed at the discretion of the board, and in which public funds are being put at risk by the discretion of the board. A public notice and public hearing process has been long needed, similar to what is sought above for the reinvestment payments. Currently the board operates in what amounts to near-secrecy, with zero opportunity for the public to have a say.
The only hearing on the legislation is set for this morning. It is unlikely that the necessary amendments will be ready in time. The amendments can be prepared by the time the legislation reaches the House floor on Tuesday afternoon. If the Legislature and the governor are serious about giving this immense discretionary power to the Board of Economic Development, the process requires the highest possible degree of openness. Voters rejected a similar type of mechanism in November. It would be an insult to try the same thing again, wrapped inside a different envelope. If a state board is going to be given the power to give away millions of dollars annually at its own discretion, in a program that favors a very small group of taxpayers above all others, the public has a right to know what is being attempted and should have the right to express its opinions to that board about each and every proposal. The state Board of Water and Natural Resources has functioned for many years under the very type of open system for its grants and loans.
Rep Hickey,
Curious, if that is truly what you beleive, then why preach to the US Congress to have one subject per bill: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/Bill.aspx?Bill=HCR1010 ?
Next year, all the legislators should simply lump all their bills they want to bring into one massive bill for all and have the title appropriatly named "HB-1001 To Make South Dakota Gooder" then we can vote from home without any debate and save South Dakotans the insult to their intelligence and the asault on their tax revenue...
P.S. ..and if I was right as you indicate, that the different subject could stand alone, then you and others are wrong as per our Constitution and the rules cited requiring the division. So your remaining argument is simply the ends justify the means?
Rep. Hickey, did you read the bill? If so then you agree with counties being forced to max out the wheel tax and that then makes you a tax and spend liberal.
Frankly, I am glad Steve raised the Tower of Babel argument. I suspect it is safe to assume that some of the stories in the Bible were less than spiritually-inspired, but resulted because some wise men noticed their societies and figured out that religion and religious stories might make society better.
If any language should be studied, it is the language of math and science. That study can probably do more than learning that some other languages work backwards compared to English or require a dozen words to say or explain something that takes one or two words in English.
We are being fed a load of diversity crap.
India is moving ahead in the world economy because of the "gift" of the English language. There are apparently hundreds or thousands of dialects and languages in India and people living even a few miles apart might not be able to communicate without using English.
And, if Spanish immersion in Sioux Falls is so wonderful for English-speaking children, why is not immersion in English language classes wonderful for Hispanics?
We don't need immigration reform, we need deportation teeth and putting soldiers camped overseas on the US borders. Otherwise, we will see our system deteriorate into a crumbled Tower of Babel..
If the legislators don't follow the rules to draft bills according to the constitution, then i don't have to pay a higher wheel tax! Where is the checks and balances of our government? Who keeps you all in Pierre in line? Its obvious you don't listen to the tax payers!
Here is the Bob Mercer amenment for SB235. It is needed for the bill to move forward.
The Board of Economic Development may not take action to award any loan, grant, or other form of financial assistance that involves public funds unless the action is taken at an official meeting for which notice has been posted in accordance with the provisions of § 1-25-1.1 and notice has been published in at least three newspapers of general circulation in different parts of the state. The notice shall be published at least two weeks before the meeting, shall contain a narrative description of the proposed actions, and shall also state where and when the hearing will be held.".
Frank; Just saw this. Am I too late?
The SD Supreme Court has made good decisions, but also some really twisted, warped decisions stretching logic and sense in the interests of established interests. I don't think a court challenge is what is needed. What is needed is a combination of initiative and referendum. Refer all hog-housed, omnibus bills to the people, and initiate a measure requiring that bill titles actually do represent fully what they contain and really be one purpose.
As has been indicated before, a bill titled something like "To support the general welfare of the state of South Dakota" could include just about anything.
Mercer's amendment as brought here by Frank K. is or would have been important. Thieves and connivers including crony capitalists like to work under the covers or under the cover of darkness.
And Steve, I am well aware of the crony capitalism nature of "non-profit" medical institutions. The Steve Brill column in TIME makes it all disgustingly clear. South Dakota has the same kind of obscene salaries for insurance and hospital system executives. As Brill indicates and have others, we don't really negotiate on price when we come into a hospital with an emergency.
So, about the only way to control medical spending and reduce ripoffs is for the government to do it by regulation. You can bet that a penny-pincher commoner is not going to get on hospital boards or insurance boards and make an immense difference of the kind we need.
Big corporations, profit or non-profit, are as much a threat to freedom and well-being as big government. Government must be as large as necessary to control the largest corporate interests.
Nick, who would have standing to bring such a court challenge?
Who will start a referendum?
Cory, I'm not an attorney but I would think a legislator would or a parent of a public school student with the argument that the program diverts money that would otherwise be used for education. However Rep. Hickey says this issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Nick makes a good point.
"However Rep. Hickey says this issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court."
Kind of like Roe v. Wade...right Rev/Rep Hickey?
Wait for it...no, no, no...that's different because...
I mean really...the good and righteous GOP South Dakota legislators would never pass laws on people that would challenge a Supreme Court ruling...right?
GOPHers. (Grand Old Party of Hypocrisy)
I like your style Jana.
When will the omnibus bills be referred?
"So, about the only way to control medical spending and reduce ripoffs is for the government to do it by regulation. "
Regulations set barriers so teh little guys cannot compete with the big guys Doug. You Democrats still have not woke up and instead have become crony capitalists yourselves as proven by SB235.
Joelie, I'm betting you won't get a referendum on SB 235. The Dems won't run it: Bernie Hunhoff and Ben Nesselhuf see this bill as the pragamtic result of their victory in last year's referendum, the wedding of some good policies with the come-heck-or-high-water corporate welfare that the GOP won't give up. The next most likely folks to stage a referendum push are the Gordon Howie/Brian Liss radical rightwingers, who can't find their own backsides if you kick 'em in the pants, let alone coordinate a successful statewide petition drive.
We will see Cory, we will see.
Right Cory, the majority (Republican/Democratic Corporatists) use democracy, the power of money, the media, and indoctrination in the name of education to take rights away from the minority.
Can SB235 be referred or not, considering the emergency clause? Isn't SB235 almost exactly like the large-project fund voters denied in Nov.? Why is the Gov. and Legislature pushing a large-projects fund when the people of SD voted, "No!!" Apparently our Gov. and Legislature do not want to respect the wishes of South Dakotans.
So please join me in a grassroots movement to refer SB235 on the principle that we South Dakotans voted NO to this in Nov. and the fact that this bill looks as Rep. Nelson described, "Hobgoblin Frankenstein monster of a bill."
Tell me how to help.
Just as any normal referendum starts, we should form a committee, research our points, put together a strategy and go from there. SD Codified Law 2-1 is the Referendum and Initiative Process. If Rep. Nelson feels as strongly as he does, then I would encourage him to join our group in trying to refer this bill.
Hey, "Pierrely," it's kinda tough for folks to "join" you if you don't tell us who you are. Referendum drives aren't anonymous, and neither is this comment section. Check the comment nymity policy, and check your e-mail.
That said, you raise a good legal point. The last section of SB 235 declares an emergency. SDCL 2-1-3 says we can refer any law passed by the Legislature "except one which may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions." That means no referral.
When is an emergency not an emergency? Nearly everytime the SD legislature or some corrupt governor pushes an idiotic project that insults the intelligence of any thinking South Dakotan.
Why was it an "emergency" to quickly sell the SD State Cement Plant to a foreign corporation? Because Janklow said it was?
If there is any emergency facing the legislature and SD this year it is in deciding to expand Medicare with 99% of the funding from the federal government. It is in deciding not to screw around with losing $12 million of highway money on some ideological irrelevancy.
Also refer the emergency provision used while we are at it.
Leave a Reply