Senator Curtis Olafson Blog

Link to article in Forbes.com

2011-11-08T13:10:00.000-06:00

This link will take you to a story on the Harvard Law School Conference on the Constitutional Convention, which was held in late September. I was invited to be a speaker and a panelist at the conference.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/10/03/time-for-a-constitutional-convention-its-the-integrity-stupid-part-2/

National Debt Relief Amendment Press Release

2011-09-22T22:52:00.000-05:00

RestoringFreedom.Org, Inc.
P.O. Box 793994
Dallas, TX 75379-3994
Phone (817) 366-1801
Fax (972) 380-5509
www.RestoringFreedom.Org
Press Release
Contact: James Booth
Phone: (817) 366-1801
Email: JBooth@RestoringFreedom.Org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1:00 P.M. EDT, September 22, 2011

MORE STATES PROPOSING SOLUTION TO FEDERAL DEBT CRISIS
DALLAS, TX, SEPTEMBER 22TH, 2011: State Legislators from across the country are joining together to allow Americans a greater voice before Congress increases the Federal Debt. Over the preceding two weeks the National Debt Relief Amendment (NDRA) has attracted additional legislative sponsors in four states. State legislators in Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin have committed to introduce a resolution calling for a limited amendments convention to propose the following amendment language: “An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.”
The NDRA Amendment resolution was passed in the States of North Dakota and Louisiana this year with bi-partisan support in both chambers, and the recent additions could result in twelve additional states joining in the NDRA convention call. States where the NDRA is pending introduction or passage are Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. Serious discussions are underway with state legislators in an additional 12 states.
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, once 34 states have called for an “amendments convention” on the same subject, Congress is required to provide a place and time for state delegates from 50 states to convene and propose an amendment or amendments for ratification that are within the scope of the state resolution.
Bi-partisan momentum is building behind the National Debt Relief Amendment as state legislators listen to the concerns of their constituents over the federal debt. The NDRA would create a national discussion and decision outside of Washington whenever Congress relies upon debt to fund its activities.
The National Debt Relief Amendment was drafted by RestoringFreedom.Org, Inc., and has been researched and endorsed by the Goldwater Institute, one of America’s leading public-policy organizations. The resolution was adopted as Model Legislation in January of this year by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
RestoringFreedom.Org, Inc. is a Texas non-profit corporation dedicated to developing and promoting non-partisan solutions to America’s challenges. More information is available at www.RestoringFreedom.Org, or by contacting our national spokesman, North Dakota State Senator Curtis Olafson at colafson@polarcomm.com.

Links to Opinion Articles on HB 1450

2011-05-08T07:28:00.003-05:00

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_182northdakotabill.html

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wic/wic_08northdakotabill.html

2011-04-24T12:22:00.001-05:00

April 17, 2011
Re: Constitutionality of H.B. 1450, “The Defense of Human Life Act”
To Members of the North Dakota Senate:
I am writing to you in reference to H.B. 1450, “The Defense of Human Life Act,” consideration
of which has been tabled as the result of a procedural vote last week. The bill would prohibit all
abortions throughout pregnancy, except to save the life of the mother (and, if a Senate
amendment were added, in cases of “sexual imposition,” “sexual abuse of a ward” and incest, as
well). H.B. 1450 is obviously and indisputably unconstitutional, would not save the life of a
single unborn child, would not survive judicial review and does not deserve your support.
First, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),
and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the States may not prohibit any
abortions before viability. It should go without saying that it is not in the interest of the pro-life
movement to have Roe reaffirmed yet again, nor is it in the interest of the pro-life movement to
force Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to declare themselves on whether Roe v. Wade
should be overruled before a majority of the Court is ready to overrule Roe.
Second, contrary to the belief of some, Justice Anthony Kennedy will not be the “fifth vote,”
along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, to abandon the viability
rule laid down in Roe. It must be kept in mind that Justice Kennedy was one of the three coauthors
of the Joint Opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirming the viability rule.
Moreover, nothing in Justice Kennedy’s dissenting opinion in the first partial-birth abortion case,
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (Carhart I), or his majority opinion for the Court in the
second partial-birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (Carhart II), even
remotely suggests that he would be open to revisiting the viability rule. Quite the contrary.
In his dissent in Carhart I, which, like Carhart II, involved an abortion procedure ban, not an
abortion ban, Justice Kennedy said: “Nebraska must obey the legal regime which has declared
the right of the woman to have an abortion before viability.” 530 U.S. at 963-64 (emphasis
added). In his majority opinion in Carhart II, Justice Kennedy reiterated what he described as
the first “principle” of Casey, that “[b]efore viability, a State ‘may not prohibit any woman from
making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.’” 550 U.S. at 146 (quoting Casey, 505
U.S. at 879).
It should be obvious from the foregoing excerpts that Justice Kennedy cannot be counted on to
abandon the viability rule laid down in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey. Without his vote, H.B.
1450 could not be upheld.
Third, North Dakota already has on the books a law that would prohibit abortions throughout
pregnancy once the Supreme Court restores to the States their rightful authority to legislate in
this area. Until it does (and the present Court would not do so), enacting legislation like H.B.
1450, with or without the proposed Senate amendment, would be an exercise in futility.

By way of background, I am the former General Counsel for Americans United for Life and have
been professionally engaged in the pro-life movement for more than twenty years. I have
represented members of the North Dakota General Assembly in an amicus curiae (“friend-of-thecourt”)
brief in the United States Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
(1992), and have submitted briefs in dozens of other cases in the Supreme Court, the lower
federal courts of appeals and state reviewing courts. I have published fourteen law review
articles on a variety of topics, including the history of abortion regulation, as well as the first
comprehensive analysis of abortion as an asserted right under state constitutions, ABORTION
UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS (Carolina Academic Press 2008). I also have published numerous
articles in journals of opinion on pro-life issues.
I am available to discuss this letter with you or members of your staff at your convenience.

Paul Benjamin Linton, Esq.

2011-02-14T12:28:00.000-06:00

Senator Olafson Legislative Report
2-14-2011
It was good to be back home in District 10 over the weekend. We had a District 10 Legislative Forum on Saturday morning at the Cavalier School and I was very pleased with the good attendance. Estimates were that about 40 people showed up for the Forum. The subject matter ran the gamut, and included property tax relief, K-12 and Higher Education funding, school bonding, oil extraction tax rates, income tax reduction proposals, concerns about the federal debt and how that affects North Dakota now and in the future, and many other issues. On behalf of myself and my District 10 colleagues, Representative David Monson and Chuck Damschen, I would like to thank all of those who came to the Forum and participated in a friendly and open discussion about many of the important issues that are coming before us this legislative session. Many of my colleagues tell me that when they do a Legislative Forum in their home district, they must use a format wherein they limit the discussion to written questions read by a moderator, and if they don’t, the Forum gets out of hand and is dominated by a few very vocal individuals. I enjoy telling them that everyone is nice in District 10 and we don’t have that problem.
We are now dealing with more controversial issues than at the beginning of the session, and the floor discussions are becoming more animated and interesting. Last week, I was involved in several vigorous debates and came out on the winning end of most of them. Compromise is part of the legislative process, so you have to accept the fact that you can’t win them all.
I have limited time for this week’s report, so I will try to get into some more specific issues next week. In closing, the Winston Churchill quote of the week: “Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement.”

Farm Bill Forum

2008-04-01T13:01:00.012-05:00

Seated left to right: Senator Curtis Olafson, Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson, Governor John Hoeven, and Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer.

District 10 State Senator Curtis Olafson participated in the round-table discussion on the Farm Bill held in Bismarck on March 28th. The event was hosted by North Dakota Governor John Hoeven, and featured Secretary of Agriculture, Ed Schafer.

Participating in the forum were representatives of approximately 20 farm organizations, farm commodity groups, the banking industry, and a member of the ND Senate and the ND House of Representatives.

Photo courtesy of Shirley J. Olgeirson, Bismarck