SD Anti-Abortion Legislation & Consequences

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; ..."

Every Sourth Dakota legislator who voted to make abortions illegal will be a part of that conspiracy in violation of 18 USC 241. Womens rights to have abortions under Roe v. Wade are established rights tied to our 14th Amendment liberties.

For the short text of 18 USC 241, see the Cornell Law site at http:// http://www.law.cornell. edu/uscode/html/ uscode18/ usc_sec_18_00000 241----000- .html

The SD legislature's rights violations do not end there.

Contained within the illegal anti- abortion legislation is a provision prohibiting the people from filing a petition for a referendum to veto the legislation. Every SD legislator who voted to bar the citizens of SD from a referendum on the illegal anti-rights legislation has violated the same law -- 18 USC 241 -- for a second count. That creates the possibility of 20 years in prison for every one of them.

Prohibiting the referendum violates the SD constitution's provisons defining referendum petitons and actions, which is part of South Dakota's republican form of government, as promised to the state and its citizens in the US national Constitution.

For those two violations of 18 USC 241, the governor and every SD legislator who signed 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 SD constitutional criminals are being unconstituionall y protected from being held accountable for their crimes. That would be a violation of the rule of law, as well as obstruction of justice.

If the prosecutions do not begin immediately, then all SD citizens will simply give up their rights to protect their rights from governmental arrogance and criminality. They will insult every American patriot who ever fought for the getting and holding of the rule of law and citizen rights -- from the War of Independence down to today. They will reject the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence, which first became law in South Dakota's 1898 adoption of the initiative and referendum petition processes.

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 and every SD legislator who signed that illegal anti-abortion legislation can be sued in federal court for simply signing the legislation. The class-aciton lawsuits against all of the SD constitutional criminals should begin immediately. Damages should be astronomical.

For the short text of 18 USC 1983, see the Cornell Law site at http:// http://www.law.cornell. edu/uscode/html/ uscode42/ usc_sec_42_00001 983----000- .html

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. This illegal anti-abortion legislation in South Dakota is perhaps the most flagrant rights violation in the history of state legislatures. It is way past time for Americans to stop that unconstitutional and illegal tactic, which is always done for the benefit of money-power and at the expense of ordinary people. We the sovereign people do have the power. We are the sovereign here.

In South Dakota, where the people can already speak for themselves through I&R petition processes, there is simply no reason to retain the megacorrupt, partisan, bicameral legislature. Retaining the Senate is enough. The people can speak for themselves, becoming 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, see the Nebraska Legislature's own site at http:// http://www.unicam.state .ne.us/learning/ history.htm

The people of South Dakota need to use this instance of massive, unconstitutional violation of rights, freedoms, and 14th Amendment liberties 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 SD 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 unconstitutional ly 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 telling the legislature that neither house can vote on a particular bill.

Such an action aganst citizen-porposed law would violate the state constitution, 18 USC 241, and 42 USC 1983. Any judge involved in such an unconstitutonal action rightfully belongs in federal prison. 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 has been predator elitism's last line of defense, stopping uppity state citizens from contributing to the dialoge for sane and responsible national policy that is offensive to money-power.

Time for we the sovereign people to stand up for our rights, before we lose them all.

Stephen Neitzke,
Founder, Direct Democracy League