Entries Tagged 'US Constitution' ↓

I guess the Constitutionality of searching landlords leaky toilets stands

Grumpy Councilor blames it on the ‘Fake’ City Charter

Seems councilor Erpenbach had a change of heart, and decided that searching un-registered rental properties and charging them for it, probably doesn’t pass the smell test, OR the Constitution test. Seems the DRAFT ordinance has a couple of changes (DOC: rental-register). It seems the ‘Search and Destroy’ portion of the DRAFT ordinance has disappeared.

Rental Registry Ordinance (4/18/2017)

The ghost of Q-Tip is still haunting us at Sioux Falls City Council. Let’s see how many years has it been since he quit the Council to join the Boom Town mayor’s administration so he could quit there to now lead the Pavilion? Does it matter? Not really but here is the old proposal to allow the town’s code enforcers to abuse citizens and property owner’s Constitutional rights preventing unlawful searches. You know unlawful seizures get to follow, just because they can.

Have you heard our esteemed code enforcers are back searching property when no one is home just because they can sneak in? They got caught by Cameraman Bruce illegally standing on a 6′ ladder taking pictures over a 6′ privacy fence one day. The judge was none too happy by this crap. These fine upstanding quasi-legal (or are they quasi-illegal) government employees don’t care when they get slapped down in court by a judge as long as they have the city attorney’s blessing to keep do that thing they do. Oh well, just another day at the office.

Listen to the public and several Council members sink this current proposal just by asking very legitimate questions. If a property owner signs up on this list so it is easier to contact the owner, why do the enforcers ignore the information they seem to have in their own files and require owners keep up to date?

Who is the list actually compiled for and why?

Why bother being legal when we have great apologists ready to change laws to justify the bad behavior. The proposed ordinance was set aside for now in the City Council Land Use committee on April 18, 2017 because it was both illegal and stupid. It was nice Michelle Erpenbach and committee Chair Rick Kiley set aside and allowed the public to speak, another precedent knocked down.

Is Sioux Falls City Councilor Erpenbach proposing a possible unconstitutional ordinance?

Here we go again, the lack of Constitutional knowledge of our city legislators. The latest proposal to the city charter could be a possible violation of the 5th, 10th and 14 amendment of the US Constitution;

In order to get property owners who rent to register with the city, they are threatening inspections to those who do not comply to registration at the Land Use Committee.

Searches and seizures of private property IS legal, with a warrant and suspicion of criminal activity. This must be issued by a JUDGE, and the search conducted by law enforcement.

In other words, if you see a property that has these kind of things going on, CALL 911! Not the health department or code enforcement.

While I don’t have an issue with ASKING renters to register with the city, if they DON’T, that is no reason to treat them like criminals, as long as they are paying the appropriate taxes on revenue from the rentals.

So ridiculous! This is like Civics 101 for 1st Graders.

Interesting time for an appeal of this ordinance

It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to realize the ordinance the city is attempting to repeal is a clear violation of 1st amendment rights. Doesn’t matter what city board you may sit on, nobody can hamper your free speech rights which include giving money to a candidate. While ethically questionable in some cases, completely legal.

So why has the city decided to now repeal this unconstitutional ordinance after a recent election (Item #B)? Makes you wonder how many appointed officers violated the ordinance in the past or even in this past election? Hey good for them, they were well within their rights. It’s the timing that smells fishy.

1stamdndmen

In the EC lawsuit, city claims the Argus is misusing ‘Grammar and Punctuation’

Oh, this is a good read (DOC); 299786924-City-of-Sioux-Falls-Defendent-Reply-Brief

Which seems like a cock fight between attorneys, the hearing on Monday outta be entertaining;

Second Circuit Court Judge John Pekas is scheduled to hear the case at 1:30 p.m. Monday in the Minnehaha County Courthouse.

No matter where you stand on the law or legal language of these statutes, it all seems irrelevant to me. Any document or settlement produced using tax payer money should be made public. It’s not like we are protecting the integrity of a man who shot himself with a 5-foot branch and a rifle in a grove of rural trees, this is about siding that was poorly installed on a building. Who are we protecting?

I also find it even more ironic we are spending MORE tax dollars on private attorneys to keep something a secret. Screw who won the spelling bee here, that should be a red flag enough to tell us something truly needs to be hidden.

Mayor’s Neighborhood Brickwalls Summit, 11/14/2015

Our intrepid mayor of Sioux Falls seems to think the US Constitution, Charter and written laws are brick walls to overcome. Listen to him discuss his quest to make over the city into his image at the Neighborhood Summit on November 14, 2015. His “to hell with the laws, Council and citizens” must be overcome if we are to have a clean and safe city for all.

The brick walls he is upset with are based on rights guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution, South Dakota Constitution and the Sioux Falls Home Rule Charter. Why does no one challenge hizzoner when he defends his administration’s lawbreaking actions?

In this Summit part 1 Mayor Mike let’s us in on his lawless vision of government by and for the specials at the expense of the rest of us.

Since the city of Sioux Falls heavily edits or blocks meetings videos we now offering a direct link to our collected city videos through www.siouxfall.org.

So we ask “Neighbors are only good if they conform to his vision?”

Mayor continues to politicize the Jesus Snowplow issue

Man, this guy really doesn’t get the whole ‘Freedom of Religion, Establishment Clause’ thingy;

Mayor Mike Huether’s office was informed yesterday that the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty was planning to acknowledge the City of Sioux Falls and also Mayor Huether in a news release issued today. This relates to the City’s Paint the Plows program, which uses student artwork.

“Sioux Falls is becoming more and more diverse every day, and that is something we celebrate here. We value diversity and differing opinions. Everyone is important in our town,” says Mayor Mike Huether.

Here is the acknowledgement;

This year, inspired by the good cheer and common sense of the Mayor Mike Huether of Sioux Falls, we are bestowing the city of Sioux Falls the (momentary) Ebenezer award but promptly toasting the mayor.

Sioux Falls was our #1 contender for the Ebenezer award after it notified a private school that the city snowplow blades its young students had labored over and decorated would be repainted and censored. Why? Because the students had decided to celebrate the season with—gasp!—artwork celebrating the religious nature of Christmas.

The city, which had previously accepted religious art, momentarily lost its way when one lone atheist claiming to be part of the Siouxland Freethinkers filed an informal complaint.

The irony of this is that the Mayor is using city resources (Website, IT and Communications public employees) to applaud an award from a Religious Organization that promotes religious liberty (infiltrating government with theocracy). He demonstrates he still doesn’t understand the US Constitution OR the Establishment clause, and further uses tax payer resources to promote a specific religious view.

Mike, if you want to brag to your friends at church or to your co-workers about the award, go for it ‘Mr. Wear My religion on my sleeve’ but stop using tax dollars to promote Christianity.

I just finished reading American Lion, the book about President Andrew Jackson, here is passage from the book that I think Mayor Huether should read;

A third early president—Andrew Jackson—was similarly convinced that the Establishment Clause prohibited presidents from declaring a national day of prayer. Though a devout Christian, Jackson was prepared to veto a proposal by Senator Henry Clay to declare a day of prayer and fasting. His veto message would have explained that, although he personally was convinced of the “efficacy of prayer in all times,” the Constitution “carefully separated sacred from civilian concerns,” and accordingly he believed it his “duty to preserve this separation and to abstain from any act which may tend to an amalgamation perilous to both.” Jon Meacham, AMERICAN LION: ANDREW JACKSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE 207 (2008) (quoting draft veto message). Once his opposition was made known, the proposal died without the need for him to veto it. Id.

Know your Constitutional rights

Reminds me of the time I was in the back of a cruiser, handcuffed, and AFTER the officer read me my miranda rights he says to me, “May I ask you some further questions?” and I said, “Well, unless there is an attorney sitting next to me in the back seat, no you cannot.” He grunted, and put the car in drive and never spoke to me again. The funny part about it was, he whipped out a list of questions before he asked me that initial question. I knew where this was going. Entrapment.

Using Winter Wonderland as an example for separation of church and state

WintWond1-640x350

As I was pondering the snow plow issue and all the crazy letters to the editor of people defending the violation of the establishment clause (because, you know, none of these people would be willing to paint Jesus Christ on the sides of their vehicles, well within their 1st Amendment rights, but defend it on government property). It reminded me of a discussion about what to name ‘Winter Wonderland’ when first proposed during the Munson administration. I remember there was a brief discussion when naming it, I think one of the suggestions was ‘Christmas at the Falls’. Not sure who got involved (City Attorney?) but I fondly remember someone within city government recommending it takes on a generic term not associated with a religious holiday. Smart move.

So what does this have to do with Jesus plows? It seems there are people who are intelligent enough about Constitutional law that work for the city (or worked for them at one time) to know you can’t cross that line while using tax dollars. So Huether shouldn’t act so surprised that this has become an issue. Of course, Huether knew nothing about local government or history of it until he started to run for mayor. History isn’t his strong suit.

As for the display itself, While I think it is a great idea, I think it could be done differently. Other cities do similiar displays but they have businesses volunteer the expense and labor and use it as an opportunity for teambuilding around Christmas. Workers and their families of the businesses that donate volunteer their time to set up the display then the city foots the bill of the electricity. They do have sponsors, but city employees do all the set-up. In fact, mostly public works department workers from the forestry division begin assembling the display starting October 1st. Which I find ironic in itself. One time when I questioned the city about project TRIM and why the city’s forestry department just didn’t trim trees that residences couldn’t reach in the boulevard, they replied, “We don’t have enough staff or enough time.” But taking almost two months to put up Christmas lights, plenty of time for. Just imagine how many trees could be trimmed in that same time period?

Once again, the city proves it’s priorities towards citizens and the law.

 

UPDATE: Compromise on Snowplows?

They are going to use a disclaimer. Sorry, but this won’t hold up in court. Huether give it up.

Here is a copy of the letter the attorney from Freedom From Religion Foundation sent to the city attorney: Freedomfromreligion

As you can see, he states several cases that show this is unconstitutional.

disclaimer

A little inspirational reading for the mayor (click to enlarge):

jeffersonreligion5

plow

IMAGE: READER SUBMISSION

Heck, with a snowplow like this, the snow would melt at impact!

As any intelligent person that understands the US Constitution and 1st Amendment, and Jon Arneson would know, you can see where this is headed;

Arneson believes having those painting on city property puts the City into a corner where, by law, it would be seen as an endorsement of religion. He says U.S. Supreme Court rulings dealing with religion and government over the past 30 years support that.

Duh?!

I guess we are supposed to hear a resolution today from the city, I suspect if we don’t hear one by the weekend, that the city decided to quietly paint over the plow blades. We will see. I did notice it is already circulating the national news that our Mayor is Constitutionally inept. There was a blurb about it in the USA Today.