Dave Kranz: If he fails at his deed, Stegmeier will try again with another heaping serving of goofy amendment.
Read it all here. Oh great. A nutty measure to go after secular or "non-religious" public schools, on top of another run at Amendment E. It seems that Stegmeier is a lightning rod for every crazy cause that wants to get on the ballot in South Dakota.Gene Chapman, a fringe candidate for president in 2008, recently posted on his Web site what the intent is, noting that he spoke by phone with Stegmeier and Dr. Robert Clarkson.
"Stegmeier will help me after the November 7 elections on the formation of a state-level Anti-Communist Act/Amendment. Dr. Clarkson has agreed to sign his name to the South Carolina Anti-Communist Act/Amendment and Stegmeier may do the same for South Dakota Anti-Communist Act," Chapman wrote.and...
(Stegmeier: ) "If you look at the "Communist Manifesto," I've been told what is going on in this country resembles the "Communist Manifesto." I am told no property tax, no central banks. That is evidently his (Chapman's) big problem."
and......Stegmeier said he told Chapman that he is not going to look at anything until after the November election.
He said Tuesday that his plans now are focused solely on Amendment E.
"If Amendment E loses and I have whereabouts to do it, I would take another stab at it - somewhat different language to address the supposed current problems with the amendment. I am more inclined to do that than what he (Chapman) is talking about," Stegmeier said.
And it doesn't sound like the no-on-e weblog is going to come down anytime soon.
Comments
The funny thing about this, Bill says "I am told that..." - Maybe ol'd Bill SHOULD READ THE MANIFESTO FIRST!
**
"Congress and the state legislatures should also make it easier to sue the federal and state governments for monetary damages when they violate our constitutional liberties.
The federal government and many states have rendered themselves immune (called "sovereign immunity") from such lawsuits if the lawsuit attacks the exercise of discretion by government employees. This is nonsense. You can sue your neighbor for negligence if his car runs over your garden or your dog. You can sue a corporation if it pollutes the air you breathe. You can sue your physician if he leaves a scalpel in your belly.
You should be able to sue the local police, state police, and the FBI under the same legal theories if they torment you, if they prevent you from speaking freely, if they bribe witnesses to testify against you, if they steal your property, or if they break the law in order to convict you.
Along with removing sovereign immunity, I would also remove personal immunity on the part of the individuals who work for the government when they commit crimes. Let me explain what I mean.
If a corporation harms you by selling you a defective product you may sue the individuals who work for the corporation who actually caused the defect, as well as the corporation itself. The individuals are usually indemnified, that is, their legal bills are paid and any settlements or judgments against them are paid by the corporation which employs them. If they have committed a crime during the course of their employment which led to the defect, their employer cannot indemnify them, and they are personally exposed to your lawsuit. The same should be the case for government employees and agents. If a government employee commits a crime in the course of his work, he should lose all immunity and be exposed personally to litigation by the victim of the crime. This would be a strong and cost-effective way to compel the government, its employees, and agents to obey the same laws they are sworn to enforce.
In some states and in the federal system, if a litigant files a frivolous pleading with the court or makes an indefensible argument to the court, the litigant must pay the legal fees of his adversary for resisting the pleading or the argument. This rule should be applied as well to the federal and state governments in civil and criminal cases. If a defendant is ultimately exonerated in a criminal case, and the government broke the law to prosecute him, the government should pay his legal bills."
***
Those interested in more examples of media's ongoing dis-information campaign, can click to www.AmendmentE.com