JAIL - take that supporter off your list.
Just a note of interest. There's a huge number of people opposing JAIL. But who is in favor of it? Here's the list from their old site:
Constitution Party of South Dakota
Scott Bartlett, Chairman
Sioux Falls, SD
And in the comments:
7:23 PM, said...
Fist of all thanks to the person who thinks I'm nice. Most of the time my kids will agree with you on that. I am no longer the State Chairman of the Constitution Party, I now work as the Midwestern States Area Co-Chairman. Secondly, although judges need reining in and accountability, the J.A.I.L amendment requires an additional layer of government. As a Constitutionalist, I oppose additional layers of government. We need to shrink the government we have. As for "Shaking in your boots" I never thought that was necessary Thanks for your space.
(my emphasis - pp)
First of all, Scott, thanks for your comments, despite my snarkyness.
Secondly, Scott brings up a very valid comment to consider for those of the constitutional and libertarian parties who may have had leanings towards this measure. And it's equally valid with those members of the major parties who oppose larger government -"the J.A.I.L amendment requires an additional layer of government" and all tne encoutrements that go with it.
That's overhead, administration, salaries, infrastructure, computers, equipment, staff, etcetera. And once it's in place, there are sure to be changes in laws, rules, and other provisions to ensure that our state laws recognize and comply with the requirements of this new branch of government.
A bigger more powerful government is being proposed, courtesy of the Judicial Accountability people.
Not exactly what they were probably hoping for, is it?