Skip to comments.South Carolina voting on bill to end Obamacare in state
Posted on 12/09/2013 10:19:46 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A bill set for fast-track passage in the South Carolina Senate in January aims to eliminate Obamacare in the state. The law could become a model for other states fed up with the federal health-care law.
House Bill 3101, titled the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act, passed the state House of Representatives last April by a 65-34 vote. The bill now heads to the GOP-controlled Senate with special-order priority, setting up the likelihood that South Carolina will become the first state to exempt citizens and businesses from all participation in the Affordable Care Act.
State Sen. Tom Davis, the bills sponsor who recently wrapped up study committee hearings for H3101 in Columbia, Charleston and other cities, says that the proposed legislation renders the Affordable Care Act void or inoperable through a handful of provisions...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Lindsey Graham will decry this as unproductive.
Hey, can we vote to end federal income tax? I don’t think it’s this simple.
Lawsuit fodder, is all
Will they shell that Fort again ?
BO loves to use the excuse that "I won" as the basis for his actions. Well, he didn't win in South Carolina.
Regardless of the outcome, I can’t applaud this enough. Might as well pass it and lob the ball back to Obama. At this point what have we got to lose? I’m glad somebody is at least drawing a line in the sand.
Lindsey Graham will decry this as unproductive.
Possibly. Or possibly he will pretend to support it, all the while supporting nomination of judges who will disallow it if passed.
Defeat Lindsey Graham in the 2014 primary season.
Go South Carolina!
At this point my money is on Lee Bright, but if one of the other 4 folks running against linda grammy gets into a run off with her, I'll switch to that person.
In the SC primary a candidate needs 50%+1 or there is a runoff of the top two.
The more primary candidates, the better.
Gees what took the special-order priority so long?
this could be interesting
Hopefully in a more figurative sense. “There’s more than one way to skin a cat.”
Well, this just about how the first Civil War started. Same place too. So maybe it will start something more than a law suit.
***The bill now heads to the GOP-controlled Senate***
Will the GOP bosses strongarm the State Senate into some kind of pocket veto?
I can see this going to the Supreme Court. If it works, I can see a lot of people and businesses moving there.
Nullification of federal laws within states is nothing new it was part of what lead to the civil war. But of course that entire issue has been dumbed down to just being about slavery in the 150 years since
Actually, this looks to be a fairly well thought out strategy of passive aggression. The Printz precedent is an effective weapon against efforts of the fed to canibalize state infrastructure for its own purposes. There will be retaliation, of course, but the SC team appear to be thinking a few moves ahead, so this could get very interesting.
Context. There is probably not a better time than right now to dig in on this. They will need popular support to stand against the fed, and they now have the people in a state of high alertness, thanks to Obamacare’s October Oops and all its ongoing fallout. This is the time.
The same logic should apply to all federal impositions on the sovereign States and their constitutional roles and responsibilities.
Medicaid, child support enforcement, education, all the way down to traffic enforcement campaigns . . . which the states “voluntarily” undertake to get “federal” money . . .
BUT WHERE does “federal” money come from ??? We are citizens of the several sovereign States. The feds have no direct citizens except maybe the territories such as Somoa . . .
The imposition can only work because the feds take the lion’s share of the tax revenue of the people of the States!
It should be the other way around since the fed’s constitutional powers are limited.
Logically the feds should not be able to impose DIRECT TAXATION on residents of the sovereign States. IMHO.
The States need to be doing a lot more of the type of thing.
Makes sense, and if they had to lexy the tax on the state governments, those governments would all of a sudden get a lot more uppity about federal taxes, since they would want to be the ones who distribute the bennies.
The 1st state in the union to sceede in CW I is doing it again.
Won’t work. Obama’s COURTS will throw it out, and then, they will DENY that anyone has “Standing” to sue over it.
. . . prohibits agencies, officers and employees of the state of South Carolina from implementing any provisions of the Affordable Care Act . . . outlawing state exchanges, issuing tax deductions to individuals equal to the tax penalties levied by the federal government, and directing the state attorney general to sue over whimsical enforcement of the law . . . considering two additional provisions: one that outlaws Medicaid expansion, and another that suspends the licenses of insurers who receive federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
I especially like the last provision, which puts an absolute stop to ObamaCare in the state where the First Civil War started - and where we might, with luck avoid a Second Civil War. Since this is a flexible law, for which waivers are commonplace and provisions are routinely rewritten or ignored based on executive orders with no legal justification at all, I see no reason why a state legislature cannot implement the will of the people and dismantle this evil law properly.
Oooooh. That’s gonna leave a mark.
Actually, I don't think the federal courts can do that lawfully. Particularly if the law suspends the licenses of insurers who receive ObamaCare subsidies, the feds do not have the authority to control state licensing of insurance companies. That's as far out of line as federal courts interfering in our local schools.
“Actually, I don’t think the federal courts can do that lawfully. Particularly if the law suspends the licenses of insurers who receive ObamaCare subsidies, the feds do not have the authority to control state licensing of insurance companies. That’s as far out of line as federal courts interfering in our local schools.”
What does “lawfull” have to do with it? It is about power, and the “Courts” DO interfere with our local schools.
More power to them. No flying the flag at half-mast for melanin-abundant deceased communist terrorists and now this - what’s going on there?
If Vermont can pass laws to set up single payer then other states can have the right to set up free market insurance. The leftists can’t have it both ways. Tie the two together.
I remembered that after I commented that it would be unlawful, so I had to add that detail for entertainment.
And if the federal government insists upon asserting its supremacy, is South Carolina going to fire on Fort Sumter?
Not Federal Troops. The new ObamaSwatMurderingThugArmy
“if they had to levy the tax on the state governments” . . .
YES! That is the way it should be! Well, not the fed levying, but the States providing appropriate revenues for the legitimate functions of the federal govt.
The Republic of these United States of America is the voluntary association of Sovereign States. So the Sovereign States should agree as to how, and how much, to pay for the services of the federal government they (the States) created, to defend and ONLY to defend, their COMMON INTERESTS.
The States should not be subject to their servant, the fed govt, DICTATING what their own citizens cough up to said servant — the federal level. Which said fed then offers to return some portion (after the fed overhead of collecting in order to redistribute), with numerous strings tied thereto.
The people are of the States, and to the States inheres the power of taxation, and should only provide to the federal level what they deem necessary for the legitimate functions the federal level provides to and for the several States.
Is this Ft. Sumter all over again. States Rights over a centralized messed governmental bureaucracy.
And he’ll be right if the state isn’t prepared to ignore a court order. If they do, it’ll set off an overdue process whereby states flex their muscle.
God bless and protect South Carolina.
Just as Thomas Payne wrote in The Crises, the Tories are unmasked. Just as he thanked Georgie Boy for exposing their Tories, we can thank 0.
The founders never intended for 5 judges to make the final determination what’s constitutional.
My guess is SC legislators and execs will get a call from the NSA saying something like this, “That’s a nice little bill you got there. Once the courts rule in unconstitutional, back off. We wouldn’t want your surfing habits to go public would we?”
The Supremes will say that they have no standing.
No. The enforcer is IRS. They will take your refund or later attach your paycheck no matter what you do to avoid participating.
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.