March 21, 2006
by Stephen Neitzke
I submitted my essay arguing South Dakota's legislative felony to FindLaw's "Writ" on 14 March 2006. It was a hardship, then, to read Professor Michael Dorf's contradictory piece, "Does South Dakota's New Abortion Ban Cross The Line ... ?" in FindLaw's "Writ", dated 15 March 2006. It was instantly clear that my analysis of the South Dakota government's action has no chance of being published by FindLaw.
Professor Dorf, at the end of long and tortured political commentary, draws this conclusion. "One can think, as I do, that the new South Dakota law is unwise. One can also think, as I do, that it is unconstitutional. But granting all of this, South Dakota still acted within its rights in asking -- in the only lawful way open to it -- for the Justices to reconsider their abortion jurisprudence."
Any law professor knows better. The limitations of legislative immunity are a governmental-workings high-ground in both criminal and tort law.
We can hold Dorf and every other law professor responsible for knowing that the South Dakota government has no 'legislative immunity' defense in HB 1215. The South Dakota government did not act within its rights. Its action in passing and approving HB 1215 was unlawful. HB 1215 was a straightforward violation of federal criminal law and a legislative felony. Additionally, it was very probably treasonous.
Paraphrasing Churchill, makes no difference what you do to truth -- in the end, there it is. Dorf's distortion and denials of truth in the South Dakota anti-abortion, anti-law regime are nothing more than lies in support of fascist thuggery. In the end, the truth will out.
Dorf has proven himself another mouthpiece for the WSC of the corrupt establishment and the corrupt status quo. Whitewash, Stonewall, and Coverup are some of the best blunt-force-trama tricks in predator elitism's age-old Machiavellian toolbox. Dorf has proven himself a master of their use -- as he did in his rubber-stamping of the fascist thugs masquerading as Supreme Court judges in Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454, 06 June 2005.
Raich, of course ruled medical marijuana illegal under the unconstitutional sections of a federal statute, "The Controlled Substances Act of 1970". It shredded states rights to determine legitimate medical practice, and it further shredded over two hundred years of jurisprudence in the 9th and 10th Amendments as well as in federalism and equity. It is a purely unconstitutional ruling.
(Article Continues Below)
Dorf gets extra career points in money-power's class war on the little people. He gets extra air miles to fancy conference destinations for hammering the wedge deeper into the emotional abortion rift -- and the emotional medical marijuana rift. Anything that divides the contemptible little people among themselves is the stuff predator elitist legends are made of. The predator elitist Legend Of Dorf is well on its way to greatness.
Dorf ratchets us another notch closer to complete rigidity between money-power's greed/corruption camp and the sovereign people's democracy/rights camp. The truthful application of the law is the only safety valve between those two age-old centers of bloody conflict. When opportunistic thugs like Dorf take away the safety valve, they ratchet us another notch closer to social explosion and bloody revolt.
Any law professor who provides WSC for the Supremes' unconstitutional rulings and the felonious SD co-conspirators can be marked as an enemy of the sovereign people.
You can read all of Dorf's WSC essay on the SD legislative felony on the FindLaw site at --
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060315.html
His WSC essay on the Supremes' judicial conspiracy felony against citizen rights in Raich, "The Supreme Court Upholds Congressional Power To Override California's Medical Marijuana Law ... ", 08 June 2005, is at --
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20050608.html
Raich is unconstitutional for several reasons. See my essay, "Fundamental Governance Rights", section 3, "Emergent Rights", on the DDL site at --
http://ddleague-usa.net/
Normal judicial immunity does not apply to the judges in Raich. As with the South Dakota legislative felony, the ruling in Raich creates a federal conspiracy felony, violating citizen rights as defined in 18 USC 241.
We have impeached and removed many federal bench judges for unconstitutional rulings and felonies in the past. The Supremes who approved Raich are constitutional criminals and felons-in-waiting. Impeachment, removal, and criminal prosecution of them would already have been done if our rule of law and governmental checks and balances were intact. They are not intact, and opportunistic thugs like Dorf are a large part of the reason.
If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter
Please consider a donation of $1 or more to help keep this website active.
Stephen Neitzke [send him email] is the founder of the Direct Democracy League. He is the author of "The State of the Republic, 1776-2004" as well as a number of other works, which can be found at www.ddleague-usa.net and on his blog at http://ddrevival.blogspot.com/
© 2006 Stephen Neitzke
