Skip to comments.South Carolina Bill Would Nullify ‘Obamacare’
Posted on 12/04/2012 5:51:13 AM PST by Resettozero
South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional and invalid in South Carolina
A proposed bill sponsored by Rep. William Chumley of Spartanburg County, and designed to block Obamacare in South Carolina, will be pre-filed in Columbia before the end of the year.
The South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act declares the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by a lame duck Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Obama, to be unconstitutional, invalid and shall be considered null and void in this state.
The description of the act reads as follows:
An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.
Rep. Chumley discussed the proposed new law at the November meeting of RINO Hunt. During the discussion, it was noted that there are examples of Nullification being used by various states going back for more than a century. The most recent are states legalizing marijuana and homosexual marriage prohibited by federal law. Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens is another example.
Rep. Chumley said he plans to pre-file the bill before the end of the year. He is currently seeking co-sponsors of the bill. The bill is also being introduced in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesexaminer.com ...
Will Lindsay Graham do what he can to cut them off at the pass?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.Obamcare was passed constitutionally. This is just another in an ongoing series of conservatives embarrassing conservatives. If you are going to demonstrate fealty to the Constitution, you should try reading it first.
I would LOVE to see this happen. Of course Obozo would go batsh@t crazy and take legal action against SC, but let’s have this crap out right now.
If you hate conservatives so much then why don’t you do us a favor and leave FR.
Whoa! The GOP-E representative is up early this morning. Good luck, Comrade. The rest of us are going to fight back and are willing to tell the Socialists in the DemoPublican Party (along with Chief Justice John Quisling) where to stuff it.
...”Obamcare was passed constitutionally.”....
Obamacare may have been passed constitutionally, indeed. It was, however, passed using underhanded tactics that essentially excluded participation by the GOP in an unseemly spectacle, against the will of a majority of Americans. It still is opposed by a majority of Americans, a fact that does not bother Obama nor the democrat party in the U.S. Congress. Obamacare will, I fear, prove to be the undoing of US healthcare, for many reasons.
So you take one statement of the USC out of context to make what point, that whatever law the federal government passes is de factor the law of the land?
You are overlooking the fact that that same USC specifically states what the federal government is allowed to do.
Forcing the states and forcing the individuals within those states to purchase something to remain “legal” is NOT in the USC. Forcing the states to pick up the bill for a federal program (Medicare) is NOT in the USC. In fact, providing insurance for medical purposes for the citizenry at large is nowhere in the USC.
In applying constitutional ideas to a legal or judicial matter, you first need to understand the limits of that constitution.
Every state in the union has the right, the constitutional right, to say no to this unconstitutional mandate from the federal government.
And, no, the fact that the Supreme Court said this was constitutional does not make it constitutional. It may give the executive branch the legal authority to enforce the law, but the court has been wrong many times before, and they wrong on this one.
Rino hunt.....found one!
One thing that I’ve come to understand about leftists, though -
if the majority oppose their idea, that’s just proof of their own superiority over the masses.
Obamacare was passed constitutionally.
Which does not make it constitutional. It only means they followed the parts about voting.
If they nationalized the auto industry, would it be constitutional? Here they’ve nationalized the medical industry, and I don’t think it’s constitutional.
Nothing gives Congress the right to demand any citizen have health care. Are there good reasons for individuals to have health care? Sure.
But there’s also good reasons for them to have a car.
Er, no. Guess you missed the part from the portion you cited that said,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof..."
The only binding laws are those made in pursuance to the Constitution. Those not made in such a manner are no laws, and have no force as such.
Regardless of what John Roberts thinks, ObamaCare is unconstitutional. It has obvious, blatant problems both with 1st amendment freedom of religion protections, as well as 5th amendment (and derivatively, 14th amendment) due process protections. Even taking Roberts' argument that it is a "tax bill," then it is unconstitutional because revenue bills must originate in the House, while this bill originated in the Senate, despite the "shell and fill" game used by the Senate leadership.
I'm glad South Carolina is taking the step of trying to nullify this unconstitutional bill, and I think it is deliciously ironic that the lefties have been paving the way for this to gain legitimacy, with their nullifications of drug and immigration laws at the state/local level. Nice to see them hoist by their own petards.
It was also "passed" through a tortuous, wending path of reconciliation that had no business intruding itself into the process. It was also "passed" WITHOUT the promised five days for the public to view it.
It's a POS mess of legislation that should be headed off where possible.
Where you commented about “...forcing the states to pick up the bill for a federal program (Medicare)...” - that would be MediCAID.
Actually, it wasn't even that, unless we're willing to accept that the Senate's completely gutting an entirely non-related bill already passed by the House, renaming the bill, adding a completely new set of verbiage that has nothing to do with what the original bill said or was about, turning it into a "revenue" bill as Roberts and the SCOTUS ruled, is somehow constitutional.
Revenue bills are required to originate in the House. This bill "originated" in the House only in the same sense that an anchor baby "originated" in Texas.
It would be about as effective as a state law declaring the Federal Income Tax null and void.
As I pointed out here at the time, the decision to oppose rather than participate in designing be ACA was a huge gamble with an equally big downside if Republicans lost the bet; Republicans could have extracted *major* concessions from the Democrats on matters such as “tort reform”, exclusive access by private insurers and wider state latitude in designing the exchanges if they had chosen to negotiate rather than simply oppose as it because clear the ACA might pass,
Instead, when Republicans failed to sweep the elections, conservatives were stuck with no substantive tort reform, mandatory NFP participation, and Federal control over most aspects of exchange design, with mandatory Federal exchanges set up in states which refused to set up their own.
I certainly hope that the decision to obstruct rather than negotiate made people feel *really* good at the time, because the long-term cost of that short-term political high is the permanent establishment of the ACA on Democrat terms.
And don’t kid yourself: the ACA is here to stay: once voters - including many “conservative” voters - discover that the exchanges will (for example) make it much easier to start a business without leaving their families uninsured) it’s going to be a *very* popular program.
And the irony is this: “exchanges” and “mandates” as originally designed were *conservative* programs intended to foster individual self-reliance and personal responsibility, and one of the most successful existing programs was created by conservative legislators in a conservative state (Utah).
Now however, the Democrat party is going to get credit for *their* version of the same idea - handed to them politically on a platter by Republicans who gabled away the likely chance to implement the program in a far more conservative form.
And to add insult to injury, all this happened when the Democrats were in internal disarray and the party was headed by the the worst negotiator to hold that office in the last hundred yeas - a pushover, really - and the Democrats couldn’t have created the ACA in it’s current form without the assistance of congressional Republicans determined to fight a losing battle.
And as I watch the house Republicans gear up to fight a losing battle to preserve “tax breaks for high earners” (as it’s portrayed in the media), I suspect that “the past is prologue” as regards the upcoming budget negotiations.
I absolutely agree with you about the gutting of the House bill and returning something entirely different.
This Supreme Court, however, has “Mad John Roberts” in charge, and that will be a mere technicality in his view.
Yes you are absolutely correct. No argument. But that hasn’t stopped liberals from going around federal laws when it suits them. (Oh, but we can’t fight dirty and descend to their level). Why the hell not? This is actually very mild action compared to what is needed. I want to see more of this.
“states legalizing...homosexual marriage prohibited by federal law.”
That is not nullification, and gay “marriage” is not federally illegal. The central government simply says for its purposes only marriage marriage exists. Whatever wacky couples the states want to recognize is up to them.
That being said, this will be considered racist by the MSM because...um...first of all everything they dislike is. Secondly, they’ll say, “Didn’t South Carolina nullify something way back when the later start the Civil War?” And that’ll suffice to bring forth a new battle cry of freedom.
“I would LOVE to see this happen. Of course Obozo would go batsh@t crazy and take legal action against SC, but lets have this crap out right now.”
All Zero would have to do to bring SC to it’s knees is to cut off EBT cards. The fist few days of the new month would see Columbia in flames that would make Sherman proud.
“Obamacare was passed constitutionally”
Says who? SCOTUS? Why do the states have to listen to them? Aside from the armed forces, I mean.
“just another in an ongoing series of conservatives embarrassing conservatives”
If you’re embarrassed by little old nullification in the presence of the high and mighty supremacy clause, maybe you’re not a conservative and have nothing to be embarrassed about.
“If you are going to demonstrate fealty to the Constitution, you should try reading it first”
Quote me the section of the Constitution empowering Congress to mandate individual citizens purchase health insurance. Point out whence derives 99% of what’s in the bill no one’s read, for that matter. Then read the 10th amendment and ruminate on that.
Instructive and erudite, but like the worm ouroboros, what you wrote leads back on itself but nowhere there can be a successful outcome for me or my progeny, in the matter of this Affordable Care Act edict some S. C. conservatives see as unjust and tyrannical.
“It only means they followed the parts about voting”
But they didn’t. The bill originated in the Senate, and everyone knows it. I will never, ever buy it deeming to have passed the house.
Well, then the time will come when we have to ask ourselves which trumps which - the SCOTUS, or the Constitution?
It is also an illegal tax, as it is direct though not an income tax, and not apportioned among the states.
Also, contraSCOTUS the taxing power only applies to raising money for constitutionally empowered purposes, and, no, “general welfare” is not a purpose.
There is the tenth amendment, and the Supreme court decided that laws that are unconstitutional are a nullity.
THis bill is a necessary push-back on an ever reaching Fedgov.
Since we have a resident constitutional scholar posting, please cite for us simpletons the specific enumerated power in which the federal government is allowed to oversee healthcare ?
Repeating, it’s an end run but...if it works? You and I seem to agree on your other points, except I’d like to point out there was nothing at all civil about The War Of Northern Aggression.
Slavery was constitutional up until the War of Yankee Agression. It took an unconstitutional act by Lincoln to overturn it.
Perhaps a better choice of words for DeathCare would be immoral, unethical or usurpation of liberty.
What do you propose - obeying like a good robot? I prefer to fight for liberty. I was born a free man and I will die one. My knee bends for no one, save He who made me.
I have asked this before and I will continue to ask it. If you can’t buy health insurance across state lines, it is clearly INTRASTATE COMMERCE. What Constitutional power does the Federal Gov’t have over INTRASTATE commerce? Unless the Supreme Court declares that insurance is a Consitutional right, the Feds have no role here.
“the irony is this: ‘exchanges’ and ‘mandates’ as originally designed were *conservative* programs intended to foster individual self-reliance and personal responsibility”
That’s too common to be ironic. Where do you think Cap n Trade came from, or the earned income tax credit, or income tax withholding, etc. From the minds of people like Newt Gingrich, whom I’ve heard described as a “frugal socialist.” He takes the Welfare State and massive government intrusion into the economy for granted, which is only reasonable. Then he looks for ways to shift responsibilities back to individuals, which seems prudent. But the resulting programs expand government further, which shouldn’t be the object. Ah, you say, socialists would expand it even further than that. It’s a chess game, and we’re sacrificing for position.
Only they never stop there, and it is painfully obvious the mandate, the exchange, etc. will be a stepping stone toward an inevitable single payer system and the complete nationalization of healthcare. Why do we play along? Because we’re still the stupid party.
If you hate conservatives so much then why dont you do us a favor and leave FR.
I don't hate conservatives. I hate idiots. Frankly, conservatives could do well disassociated from idiots.
The fact is that this SC bill is a waste of time an effort. The bill is unconstitutional. It will do no good. Apparently, we (conservatives) have become so addicted to losing battles that we've decided to start ones that are lost from the get-go.
IIRC, the South Carolina nullification issue actually preceded the Civil War, and revolved around a tariff that was imposed during the Jackson administration.
Nevertheless, it would be very interesting to see if the FedGov would really resort to armed force to force South Carolina to accept ObamaCare, should this nullification bill pass.
If South Carolina stood firm, I *highly* doubt that the FedGov would go that far. I can think of nothing more likely to provoke massive armed resistance nationwide, as well as massive insurrection within the Armed Forces themselves. More likely, they'll try to cut off highway funds or something.
I love it. This loser can't actually address the constitutional arguments made, he just repeats the same assertions he started with, like some kind of socially autistic monkey.
If you cant buy health insurance across state linesI'm not sure it matters either way, as the SCOTUS shot down the Commerce Clause arguments. FWIW, Obamacare allows for you to buy insurance across state lines. In order to do so, your state has to form an agreement with the other state.
I agree, but for these guys now, the rule of law has been distorted into a tightly-wound ball of contradictory rulings that result in the ability to do and say to us whatever they wish. In other words, law has fully become lawlessness for their personal gain — and they admit it to themselves and laugh. It isn’t even ideology that motivates them.
“What Constitutional power does they Federal Gov’t have over INTRASTATE commerce?”
None. But they have court-created power over commerce which “substantially affects” interstate commerce. Heck, they have power over any activity which affects interstate commerce, even if it isn’t commerce.
That’s boy at issue here. The mandate was not upheld under the commerce clause. It supposedly derives from the taxing power. Which means it’s not a mandate, really, just a hint how not to get taxed. If you’re wondeing just what is the taxing power and for what purposes and by what means it can be invoked, well, it’s basically unlimited. You can raise taxes however you want and spend the money after you get it as you please, you being the feds. Unless it affects “discreet minorities,” or in other words is politically incorrect, or very obviously violates one of the rights in the Bill of Rights they still choose to pay attention to.
I love it. This loser can't actually address the constitutional arguments madeThat's the job of the SCOTUS. You may have heard about their decision. Arguments on Internet forums about the constitutionality of Obamacase are pointless. Basically, the arguments now are, "We lost, they must have cheated." That'll go a long way on a middle school playground, but not in the real world.
“You and I seem to agree on your other points, except...”
That point was me anticipating what the MSM will say, for the record.
Fort Sumter redo. Rebel Yell.
The SC bill is unconstitutional? How? Via the supremacy clause? That dog will only hunt if you’re right and Obamacare is constitutional. But that’s exactly what’s at issue. If SCOTUS is right then the supremacy clause triumphs. If South Carolina is right the 10th amendment has its back. Might Makes Right devised the last major fight between states and the feds, granted. So it is largely purposeless.
But so is Colorado’s anti-prohibition stand or California’s antiimmigration law stance. Go call them embarrassing for a while.
You’re right, but you ain’t gonna be very popular.
Well...No one here agrees with your opinion so I guess you really are Mr. Know it All - at least in your own little world.
“That’s the job of SCOTUS”
Says who? Not the Constitution. I realize it’s become a so-called “informal amendment,” but it is productive of all manner of evil. Think egotism instance, of Bush the Younger’s refusal to veto the incumbency protection act (McCain-Reinhold) on the trust that SCOTUS would faithfully execute its responsibility. Not that it wasn’t a lie and an evasion of responsibility on Bush’s part. Nevertheless he could have used the veto power as presidential review and didn’t. SCOTUS is not the only body capable of blocking unconstitutional laws.
State nullification and jury nullification don’t as obviously exist because they’re not talked about as much as the equally unwritten power of judicial review. But they are ideas with a long pedigree, and I believe states are under no legal obligation to follow laws they deem inapplicable no matter what SCOTUS says.
Are there any park rangers guarding the monument on Fort Sumter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.