Federal coercion has been used to misdirect South Dakota’s self determination and bastardize the tenth amendment. Involuntary Medicaid expansion was the most recent high profile case of such abuse with a narrow majority of opposition in the U.S. Supreme Court. The governor’s administration, for the preservation of federalism, should resist being forcibly co-opted by any federal administration to the detriment of our people’s sovereignty. I profess that this defense of our state’s rights is an active and unending struggle and should never be passively disregarded by a knowledgeable ignorance.

The inducement of compliance through threat, most apparent by newly elected national administrations, is a tool used to further sweep aside the wishes of the minority. South Dakotans, few in number as compared to the national population, are waiting victims without the diligent reinforcement of our states reserved rights through the tenth amendment. The many administrations over our nation’s history have continually narrowed our Constitution’s amendments past the direct interpretations and unto the apparent shredding of their very soul. The ninth and tenth amendments have been cast aside largely due to their lack of lettered explanation.

The enormous pressure that can be exerted by the federal government to implement policy under seemingly attractive propaganda in order to “white wash” the collateral damage to individual rights should be universally feared. The federal government, through the arrogance of ruling parties, have terrorized people that do not share the same agenda. In the belief of Thomas Hobbes and his followers, strong federal coercion through a centralized government is necessary, because a people left to themselves should not be trusted to behave in a civilized manner. This philosophy tatters the belief in the nobility of mankind. Perhaps Alexander Hamilton’s greatest folly was his naïve belief that states wouldn’t be coerced and their rights compromised by the powerful governments advocated by Hobbes.

Spineless action by the custodian of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, over what denotes coercion by the federal government versus simple encouragement has continued into this new era of degraded federalism. The legacy of our Supreme Court has no such carried assumption similar to papal infallibility by the American people and have as much to blame for the poor defense of our rights as our governments. In another time and different state administration, our people sent Mark Barnett to do battle with the federal leviathan about what is considered “mild encouragement.” Who will go next to challenge the federal government over how free South Dakotans are to govern themselves?

The Electoral College as expressed in Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution explains that the President shall be elected by the Electoral College, which is composed of electors from all the states. It was established by our Founders so that the people of our state can decide how our electors may vote based on our people’s will. In contrast, in Great Britain’s Parliament, the Prime Minister is elected by the majority party. As Americans we hold high the need for checks and balances; therefore, we have organized the offices of President and Congress into separate branches. Our federalism is promoted by the Electoral College as a foundational element of checks and balances in our political system. The Electoral College is an expression of the Founder’s wish that we remain a republic. The Founders left it up to the states to decide whether or not to have the electors appointed by the state legislators or elected by popular vote. We act as South Dakotan’s first, and second as part of the Union, which is an expression of the fact that the original 13 states were in effect 13 countries. Consider Arizona’s struggle with the federal government over illegal immigration.

Our Electoral College is a barrier against tyranny. It is similar to our system of local and state government which insulates us from possible federal abuse, where each level by choosing whether or not to cooperate with the federal government then enables that government’s power. The institution of the Electoral College has no permanent sitting body so that corruption through bribery cannot transpire to win votes. The Founders of the U.S. Constitution feared domination of the presidential elections by states with the largest populations. In the Federalist Papers No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that we need electors who will be true to their people through rules that keep them aligned with their home states. For instance, the electors could only meet once in their home state to insulate them from national pressure.

The United States of America is not a direct democracy, but rather a type of representative democracy. The Founder’s knew that unlimited power to any majority of the people through direct democracy would transform into a form of tyranny. A famous writer in American exceptionalism, whose literary passages can serve us, traveled through our country in the 1830’s. Within the traveler Alexis de Tocqueville’s, ‘Democracy in America’, we find telling words, “what I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there, but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny”…if ever freedom is lost in America, that will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force.”

Proponents of the National Popular Voting system state that under the Electoral College System, presidential candidates do not bother campaigning in states that predictably go to one party or another. That is like blaming the American system of government for the weaknesses of the messenger. If the National Popular Vote became law in South Dakota, then we would certainly become a fly-over state. The current South Dakota Electoral College is set up to allow us to vote in a block so that South Dakota’s interests are not drowned out by a larger state’s interests. This “winner takes all” system awards our 3 electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate receives a majority of the state-wide popular vote for president. Presently, five states control over 58% of the needed 270 votes to become President of the United States. If the National Popular Vote is adopted, the presidential candidate has far fewer states to please. We would then have to hope that we as South Dakotans are greatly similar to Californians as to how we wish to be governed.

We should be promoting South Dakota’s influence on national politics, not diminishing it. As an example of how the majorities tyrannical consolidation is true even on a state political level, notice how many counties in South Dakota have been districted with counties with larger populations which ensures that little to no voice shall surface from rural areas on the legislative floor. I believe every county has an inherent right to a direct vote in the state legislative process, but that is another debate.

South Dakota owes its statehood in 1889 to the Electoral College. In 1888, the Electorate voted into office Benjamin Harrison, rather than the winner of the popular vote, Grover Cleveland. Cleveland did not want South Dakota entered as a state because of the inclusion of at least two more Republican Senators in Congress. Before his departure from office, he quickly signed into existence four states, two with Republican and two with Democratic majorities, to keep a balance between the major political parties. There you go…checks and balances in unexpected forms. Even the ancient Roman Republic used an Electoral College to preserve the rights of its people.

 In the midst of a national deficit crisis, our legislators should not be busy bypassing the Founder’s Constitutional protections for states. Our Constitution is constantly being re-interpreted to suit a politician or political groups’ special agenda, and the voters must remain steadfast to preserve our rights. The direction of our government is based on public opinion, and I urge you to voice your concerns to our South Dakota state legislature.

Unfortunately, the seduction of producing results that benefit their agenda tempts our politicians to trample the integrity of our property rights. A tyrant can always ‘justify’ why you no longer have rights to your property. Because our Supreme Court has mishandled our Founders’ intentions and our personal rights so handily, the public’s disregard for private property rights has been emboldened. For instance, the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London decided to interpret the 5^th amendment in a broad sense so as to continue the expansion of abuse. It was successfully argued that if a town could increase tax revenues then they had a legitimate right to condemn private property. In New London, the town had become more important than the people residing there and they condemned property that wasn’t blighted in order to fit a vision to restore the town’s economic progress. Any developer or politician may have the ability to prove that your private property is worth more to the government in some other entities hands, and Kelo v. New London’s result gave them authority to steal. Eminent domain in this tyrannical form is an assault on property rights, and it can arrive at anyone’s doorstep.

The people who are supporting the Keystone XL Pipeline have been manipulated through their desire for oil development. But, sound initiatives towards oil development exist that will not erode the rights of America’s citizens. The bottleneck in oil refining that exists in America is the culprit of high fuel prices. The EPA has, through regulations and red tape, made creating oil refineries in the United States impossible. Building more refineries would lower fuel prices and contribute to our economic progress. Also, continuing to support the drilling of known and existing oil fields, as well as continuing to develop techniques that better extract oil from America’s oil shale, from which would encompass the entire worlds proven oil reserves again, will benefit the United States. Oil fracking and other methods, such as Enhanced Oil Recovery, will further utilize known and proven fields. These methods will help lower fuel prices by increasing supply, while the Keystone XL Pipeline will likely raise fuel prices in South Dakota by lowering the supply of pumped crude oil in the Midwest.

Our political leadership is trampling on our property rights for a pipeline project that will actually raise our fuel prices. But our governments’ main concern should be maintaining the integrity of the rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Constitution. We value the rights of the individual in America above all else. We became a Republic in order to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the masses. A Constitutional amendment may be the only logical route to define, narrow, and ensure that when eminent domain is applied, it is absolutely necessary and in the best interest of our citizens.