UPDATE II: HERE IS a great example of what Paul is doing wrong;
“Public meetings are not safe spaces for elected officials,” Fitzpatrick said. “They should expect to hear the unvarnished thoughts from their constituents, and if they can’t handle that, they shouldn’t be in public office.”
Did you hear that Paul? Time to resign.
Paul struggles with his Constitutional oath of office. When you say you will defend the constitution that means every amendment including the first. At the informational Curt was cutting people off also. I will remind the mayor for the 1000th time, people can say whatever they want to at public input as long as they are not physically threatening council. It is really frustrating that constitutional officers don’t understand their oath. Oh that’s right Paul went to the school of doxing and closed government. If he ever cuts me off I will continue to speak right thru him, because I know the security police in the room will not arrest anyone for practicing their 1st Amendment rights.
UPDATE: Speaking of that last sentence, I encourage any constituent who is being cut off by the mayor to stand your ground. I won’t defend you if you are yelling and dropping S and F bombs but if you are being respectful and actually talking about ‘government’ in general they can’t arrest you. In fact, I know that the SFPD has told the mayor they will NOT arrest anyone at the council meeting for practicing their 1st amendment rights. So let’s challenge him and see what happens? It would be a black eye on the administration if the mayor requests security arrest an 80 year old woman who is complaining about her neighbor’s stereo.
“Say, is the ‘School of Doxing and Closed Government’ out of Dordt?”….. “What about the School of Selfies?”…. ( …. “Actually, that last one sounds more like a community college thing”…. ) …. 🙂
I once had a girlfriend in college who minored in doxing, and then soon after we broke up I had no friends.
I just wish that my neighbor would get some Dolby sound. Although, I do like it when she dances in her bikini, while on her patio, with a Kenwood blasting in the background.
Actually Mayor Paul called “time” at the 5 minute mark. The rules are, each public commentator gets 3 and 5 minutes on 1st and 2nd Reading of Ordinances. The City Council while discussing the ordinance could in fact brought forward the public commentator for further information. The mayor also gets to keep the public commentator on topic, which also occurred twice this past Tuesday night.
Mike, yah ain’t winning this argument, as the 1st amendment attorney says in story local governing policies do not supersede tha constitution. It’s really that simple. Time limits are allowable, but really should be thrown out also.
yeah of course they want to raise property taxes to pay for a bunch of pet projects the general public wont use. what a joke
Where in the Federal Constitution does it regulate the States or the People outside of the District of Columbia. People continue to misrepresent the Federal Constitution, when its sole objective was by the States to create a permanent Central Govt, Restricting that government, and keeping it out of state matters. It says nothing about how the people can regulate their own private meetings as a Community, be it the County Commission, City Council, or any other Committee, Commission, or Convention. There is a reason why the ordinance regulating our public meetings has never been challenged in the circuit court, let alone our State Supreme Court. Follow the Rules, or change the rules. Your original comment was the MAYOR was restricting free speech, I did not see that. I saw him “manage” a public meeting keeping it on time, topic, and schedule. Like I said, if the City Council wanted to, they could have brought foward the public commentator for further comments during discusson.
Mike, if you don’t believe our Constitution is the highest law of the land you need to leave. I heard Russia is looking of conscrips.
@l3wis ha ha ha . Mike so the feds dont sue local governments for violating peoples civil rights?
If Trump can veer off about Hannibal Lecter why do citizens have to stay on topic?
I wore a Jester Hat once for public comment. Jingle bells and all. I’m thinking something obnoxious. How about wear one of those Chipotle Boo-Rito body suits.
Huether Tennis Snobs is having 30 visiting pros. I’m attending with tennis skirt, stockings, and heels.
Well, Scott,
What part in the Constitution does it “regulate” anything related to any activities inside South Dakota? It does NOT. It does the following:
1) Creates a Permanent Full-Time National Government that now has the Treasury, State, War, and 1 Agency – Post Office.
2) It gives to that “government” 4 Responsibilities – Foreign Commerce, National Defense, Immigration, Monetary.
3) It “Restricts” the Federal Govt to ONLY the “Jurisdiction” of the District of Columbia, Federal Territories, U.S Military Bases, Federal Enclaves inside the “states”.
4) It does NOT grant to this newly Created Government any power to regulate any commercial activities in South Dakota, “only” foreign commerce passing through South Dakota.
5) The Bill of Rights were written, and adopted by the States to Guard any Federal Expansion of the Government into “State Affairs”, restricting the Government from meddling in all affairs of the People of South Dakota.
South Dakota became a “state” agreeing to very specific things as agreed to in the S.D Constitution Article 22 the Compact Clause. It agreed to take on its share of the U.S Debt, to Not Participate in the British Slave Trade, to Only Coin its currency in Gold or Silver, to never Meddle in the affairs of any of the Other 50 States.
No where in the U.S Constitution does it restrict the People of Sioux Falls from creating rules of how to manage their own Public Meetings. Those things are managed by the S.D Constitution and the Laws of South Dakota.
If you want me to leave, I sure can.
Mike Z.
Mike, you really need to stop going Old Testament on us. sCOTUS has always upheld the constituent’s rights when it comes to public input, and this case will be no different. This is about the 4th and 1st amendment not if the Brits owe us money for slaves.