If it does pass, it’ll also add the populace’s support to the considerations if the law gets tested in the Supreme Court on the grounds of state vs governments rights. I’m sure if that will make a difference, but it’ll be a nice bullet point.
Rob B. - 07:06am on 06/19/2006
What message will it send if the law is defeated?
Puzzlefeet - 10:06am on 06/19/2006
That the majority of South Dakotans oppose the ban as written.
But then there’s a larger point here: If the ban is overturned by the voters the pro-abortion people will likely appeal it through the court system. If it is overturned they’ll declare a victory for the democratic process.
What I’m wondering is why they’ll only respect the will of the voters in one instance? When the majority agrees with them they’ll accept it, but when they don’t they’ll try to get some judge to impose their will by judicial fiat.
That’s crap. Roe vs. Wade should be overturned so that the voters in each individual state have the ability to settle this matter for themselves. All this furor over abortion is exactly why the founders, through the 10th amendment, left thorny social issues to the states.
Rob - 11:06am on 06/19/2006
Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.
Puzzlefeet - 11:06am on 06/19/2006
Abortion is not a “right”. I hope South Dakota voters ban it entirely. It will be interesting to see.
Zsa Zsa - 11:06am on 06/19/2006
Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.
The judiciary cannot write law, Puzzle, yet that’s exactly what they did when they read a “right” to an abortion into the Constitution where it didn’t exist.
Rob - 11:06am on 06/19/2006
Abortion is not a “right”.
As of today it certainly is.
Speaking of South Dakota, how do you pronounce the name of the capital? Is it Pee-air or Peer?
Regards…
LoadTheMule - 12:06pm on 06/19/2006
As far as the application of the law goes, yes abortion is currently a right. But only by judicial fiat. I don’t agree with the ruling, but the law obvoiusly has to be upheld.
As for Pierre, it is pronounced “peer.”
Rob - 12:06pm on 06/19/2006
According to the Supreme Court it may be a right. BUT, they are wrong and it should be upheld. The case was decided wrongly in accordance with the constitution.
Zsa Zsa - 02:06pm on 06/19/2006
Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.
No, there are several branches of government that we forget. First, you are correct that there are three “FEDERAL” branches of government. But there are also state branches of government that mirror the Feds. Each state has three branches. But funny, two of the three state branches are who passed this law, and the law has not been challenged Constitutionally in the state because that would require a state judge and ultimately the state Supreme Court to somehow use black magic and voodoo to find some similar “right to privacy” in the state Constitution.
So what we have is a fourth branch of government in most states called a referendum. South Dakota was the first state in the country to implement this. It essentially is a process for voters to override the will of the state Legislature and in Arizona, it essentially passes laws that even the state courts cannot overturn. Like a trump card.
Four Republican state senators who voted against South Dakota’s abortion ban lost their primary elections, raising questions about support for an effort to repeal the controversial state law.
“There’s certainly no good news in the outcome for pro-choice advocates,” Bob Burns, a political science professor at South Dakota State University, said Wednesday.
The defeat Tuesday of half of the eight Senate Republicans who opposed the nation’s most restrictive abortion law might mean trouble for a planned referendum in November to rescind the ban, Burns says. The other four had no primary challengers.
South Dakota has the distinction of being the first state in the Union to provide for popular initiative and referendum for enacting and rejecting legislation. This was accomplished by constitutional amendment approved in 1898. These two forms of direct legislation, first used in 1908, rest on the theory that since the legislature may not always adequately represent them, the people should be able to pass laws they desire and nullify laws they oppose.
In 1972 the state constitution was amended to allow constitutional changes by initiative as well.
In 1988 the state’s voters changed the state constitution to eliminate a requirement that an initiative be submitted to the legislature for approval before placement on the ballot.
Note how the abortion rights folks want a vote on this one. They didn’t want a vote in 1973. Let’s see how this turns out for them.
If it does pass, it’ll also add the populace’s support to the considerations if the law gets tested in the Supreme Court on the grounds of state vs governments rights. I’m sure if that will make a difference, but it’ll be a nice bullet point.
What message will it send if the law is defeated?
That the majority of South Dakotans oppose the ban as written.
But then there’s a larger point here: If the ban is overturned by the voters the pro-abortion people will likely appeal it through the court system. If it is overturned they’ll declare a victory for the democratic process.
What I’m wondering is why they’ll only respect the will of the voters in one instance? When the majority agrees with them they’ll accept it, but when they don’t they’ll try to get some judge to impose their will by judicial fiat.
That’s crap. Roe vs. Wade should be overturned so that the voters in each individual state have the ability to settle this matter for themselves. All this furor over abortion is exactly why the founders, through the 10th amendment, left thorny social issues to the states.
Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.
Abortion is not a “right”. I hope South Dakota voters ban it entirely. It will be interesting to see.
The judiciary cannot write law, Puzzle, yet that’s exactly what they did when they read a “right” to an abortion into the Constitution where it didn’t exist.
As of today it certainly is.
Speaking of South Dakota, how do you pronounce the name of the capital? Is it Pee-air or Peer?
Regards…
As far as the application of the law goes, yes abortion is currently a right. But only by judicial fiat. I don’t agree with the ruling, but the law obvoiusly has to be upheld.
As for Pierre, it is pronounced “peer.”
According to the Supreme Court it may be a right. BUT, they are wrong and it should be upheld. The case was decided wrongly in accordance with the constitution.
No, there are several branches of government that we forget. First, you are correct that there are three “FEDERAL” branches of government. But there are also state branches of government that mirror the Feds. Each state has three branches. But funny, two of the three state branches are who passed this law, and the law has not been challenged Constitutionally in the state because that would require a state judge and ultimately the state Supreme Court to somehow use black magic and voodoo to find some similar “right to privacy” in the state Constitution.
So what we have is a fourth branch of government in most states called a referendum. South Dakota was the first state in the country to implement this. It essentially is a process for voters to override the will of the state Legislature and in Arizona, it essentially passes laws that even the state courts cannot overturn. Like a trump card.
But try this on for size from the US Today:
This is interesting background:
Note how the abortion rights folks want a vote on this one. They didn’t want a vote in 1973. Let’s see how this turns out for them.