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.
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.