“The reason that abortion is such a controversial issue is that Supreme Court in Roe v Wade etc attempted to settle a political question, abortion, with a judicial process.”

I doubt this is true. Abortion law repeal was already a controversial issue during the period from 1968-1973, when repeal campaigns were mostly being carried on at the level of state legislatures. It’s true that Roe repealed abortion laws in some states where it probably wouldn’t have been repealed through the legislative process, but the fact that something is done through state legislatures doesn’t really cool down the controversy very much when people on both sides consider it a matter of fundamental moral principles. (For comparison, see the state-by-state debates over slavery from, say, 1780 – 1860.)

“So the question is why is the SDCHF pursing a electoral process. When the issue is a supposed constitutional right, the venue to pursue your rights is a court of law. Does the SDCHF believe that their issue so popular that they will win a electoral victory and conversely does the SDCHF believe their issue is so weak legally that they can’t prevail in court room? Neither position seems well founded. So I profess, I do not what is going on here. Do you?”

My understanding is that if they get the signatures necessary to put a referendum on the ballot, this will delay implementation of the ban until after the referendum (it’s currently scheduled to go into effect in July). So putting it on the ballot offers three advantages:

1. It buys time.

2. If the referendum passes, that cuts the legs out from under anti-abortion demagogues who would otherwise be screaming about “judicial activism” overriding the Will of the People of South Dakota etc. etc. etc. It would also give the South Dakota legislature some serious reasons not to try a stunt like this again.

3. If the referendum fails, they’ve had plenty of time to prepare for taking it to court, and they’re not much worse off than they were before.

Personally, I favor a strategy based on direct action and polycentric law. But I don’t think that the SDCHF’s plans are weird or particularly stupid, either.

“The largest measure available to us is how many people left after the constitution was adopted. Tell me, John how many of them left after the constitution was adopted? I’m willing to bet that the number was small enough that you can’t tell us. You would think that if so many disagreed with the concepts embodied in the constitution that they would have voted with their feet.”

O.K., great. Here’s a new constitution. It says, “We the people of North America, do hereby proclaim Rad Geek as the sole Emperor of all North America. He has the power of life and death over everyone in North America and you have to do everything he says.” I’m going to put this constitution up to a vote. Who gets to vote on it? I do. I hereby vote in favor of this constitution. Voila, I am now Emperor of North America by unanimous consent.

Now let’s see how many people leave North America. Hell, I’ll give them a month before my coronation to get packing. If they don’t, then that entails that they are tacitly accepting Our Imperial reign over them, right?