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 ...
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.