SD Voters have big decisions to make on June 4th. Voters will be well served to do their own research and be informed. The trajectory of our state, our freedoms, and our rights depend on it.
Oh come on....almost EVERY bill is unconstitutional. When I complained about an unconstitutional bill I was told (as a sitting lawmaker), "we do it all the time.!" I even complained to Marty Jackley at the time and HE responded that if it was unconstitutional, that I (or someone) would have to hire a lawyer and take the issue to court where the COURTS would decide. I was aghast. Our Obamacare bill was brought by Willadsen, (a republican who campaigned against ObamaCare) . It was a multi-topic 72 page bill in 2011. I see he is being recycled this year...But I digress.... If you are going to call out one bill you better be prepared to look at 500 - 800 bills a year...Im betting 90% are "unconstitutional"...because that is "how its done" in Pierre. Is it right? Heck no....but calling attention to an unconstitutional bill will do nothing...because they do it all the time. Pierre is so much more corrupt than what people know. SB 201 is a bad bill....SD is filled with bad law yet no one cares....Our "republicans in name only" are evil people who only play for the winning party and care nothing for God and Country.
MAybe check out how they steal our land within the dept of School and Public Lands...that is where shell companies are formed and land gets sold for a dollar to a non-profit corp and then goes into the hands of cronies.
I suspect the single subject mandate is only a stumbling block if the Governor is opposed to the law--which isn't the case in this instance. I struggle with this issue--both opponents and proponents seem to prefer threats ala "you better not oppose agriculture interests" and "they'll come for your homes next". That said, I'm sympathetic to the issues with eminent domain--the way it's written, the authors are correct if I own a solar panel company and want to line the interstate with solar panels, I could simply take the land and do it--yes, I'd have to pay for it, but in this instance, no safety issues, public good, etc.. The same could be done with wind turbines I believe--but so far, those companies aren't using eminent domain to take land that I know of . . . maybe these types of projects can be done without using eminent domain? Those companies that want this pipeline apparently can't do it without using eminent domain. Interesting.
Of Course the governor supports this bill - she has a shell company primed to debut on the stock market (ticker NOEM) the minute it's implemented. The purpose of the company? To perform a SPAC merger with a private carbon pipeline company in order to bring that pipeline company to the public market. Blatant exploitation of her constituents, regardless of whether it has or hasn't been proven safe. So whatever it takes (eminent domain because the landowners couldn't play nice,) she will get what she wants. She made guarantees to these companies that they would be able to build in her state and that they would all be wealthy beyond reason. Need to slide it through a multi-agenda bill? No problem, as long as it doesn't include cannabis legalization. Because everyone knows the devil's lettuce is too sustainable both agriculturally and pharmaceutically to be allowed. "Hypocrisy" used to be a dirty word...
Not only was hypocrisy a dirty word, but people were embarrassed when they were called out--now out and out lies get called out "I never said lock her up" and people just shrug. Both the lies and hypocrisy of Republican leadership in this state at the local and federal level are a disgrace.
It is worse than we think.
The money people are now trying a kinder and gentler approach. It is probably working.
Be informed.
Sign the petition to refer this horrible bill.
Vote for legislators who are not on the corporate payroll.
Spot on, Rick and Wendy. Thank you!
SD Voters have big decisions to make on June 4th. Voters will be well served to do their own research and be informed. The trajectory of our state, our freedoms, and our rights depend on it.
Oh come on....almost EVERY bill is unconstitutional. When I complained about an unconstitutional bill I was told (as a sitting lawmaker), "we do it all the time.!" I even complained to Marty Jackley at the time and HE responded that if it was unconstitutional, that I (or someone) would have to hire a lawyer and take the issue to court where the COURTS would decide. I was aghast. Our Obamacare bill was brought by Willadsen, (a republican who campaigned against ObamaCare) . It was a multi-topic 72 page bill in 2011. I see he is being recycled this year...But I digress.... If you are going to call out one bill you better be prepared to look at 500 - 800 bills a year...Im betting 90% are "unconstitutional"...because that is "how its done" in Pierre. Is it right? Heck no....but calling attention to an unconstitutional bill will do nothing...because they do it all the time. Pierre is so much more corrupt than what people know. SB 201 is a bad bill....SD is filled with bad law yet no one cares....Our "republicans in name only" are evil people who only play for the winning party and care nothing for God and Country.
MAybe check out how they steal our land within the dept of School and Public Lands...that is where shell companies are formed and land gets sold for a dollar to a non-profit corp and then goes into the hands of cronies.
I suspect the single subject mandate is only a stumbling block if the Governor is opposed to the law--which isn't the case in this instance. I struggle with this issue--both opponents and proponents seem to prefer threats ala "you better not oppose agriculture interests" and "they'll come for your homes next". That said, I'm sympathetic to the issues with eminent domain--the way it's written, the authors are correct if I own a solar panel company and want to line the interstate with solar panels, I could simply take the land and do it--yes, I'd have to pay for it, but in this instance, no safety issues, public good, etc.. The same could be done with wind turbines I believe--but so far, those companies aren't using eminent domain to take land that I know of . . . maybe these types of projects can be done without using eminent domain? Those companies that want this pipeline apparently can't do it without using eminent domain. Interesting.
It's a $ making scam. Nothing too complicated about it.
Of Course the governor supports this bill - she has a shell company primed to debut on the stock market (ticker NOEM) the minute it's implemented. The purpose of the company? To perform a SPAC merger with a private carbon pipeline company in order to bring that pipeline company to the public market. Blatant exploitation of her constituents, regardless of whether it has or hasn't been proven safe. So whatever it takes (eminent domain because the landowners couldn't play nice,) she will get what she wants. She made guarantees to these companies that they would be able to build in her state and that they would all be wealthy beyond reason. Need to slide it through a multi-agenda bill? No problem, as long as it doesn't include cannabis legalization. Because everyone knows the devil's lettuce is too sustainable both agriculturally and pharmaceutically to be allowed. "Hypocrisy" used to be a dirty word...
Not only was hypocrisy a dirty word, but people were embarrassed when they were called out--now out and out lies get called out "I never said lock her up" and people just shrug. Both the lies and hypocrisy of Republican leadership in this state at the local and federal level are a disgrace.