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 ...
It might help to know that in my #13, I was quoting #3, but forgot to put it in italics.
“The Pleasure case was grounded in contemporary ‘racial science’”
Even if it wad, and I’m not agreeing, so what? SCOTUS still decided differently then compared to Brown. That was the point. The only way I could see to salvage your SCOTUS infallibility argument was to make it a “living Constitution.”
“I’ve been trying to figure out what the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is, if not the Supreme Court”
Ask yourself why the Constitution starts “We the people,” aside from a bask to hide the constitutional convention being a coup led by a small cabal of spites. We believe, or pretend to believe, in popular sovereignty. It is the people who are the final arbiters, either trough the federal government, through the states, or through themselves.
“I’ve realized that it’s you, some other Freepers and South Carolina”
Crazy system, this popular sovereignty, and workable. But that’s how it is. Possibly saner than ultimate sovereignty lying within the central government itself, specifically nine lifetermers.
Sadly, your comparison example really holds no water.
They have already instituted “cellphone possession is a basic right”.
Coming in January is “medical care is a basic right”.
How far down the road do you think “vehicle possession is a basic right” is?
Oh, I forgot they HATE the independence that vehicle possession represents, so they’ll classify “mass transit free pass is a basic right” instead, right after they take over the auto industry for good and restrict sales to only those in positions of power.
(eg How many regular people had cars in the old USSR???)
“this legal theory was tested...and lost. We then had an internal war over it and the people fighting for thus idea lost.”
That hardly settles it, Mr. Might Makes Right.
By the way, what are these non-war tests of which you speak? Did SCOTUS ever declare popular sovereignty null? Or was it more like various sections threatened secession, then nothing came of it. Or Jackson threatened South Carolina, and it flinched, so nothing came of it.
I always thought it was significant the feds never prosecuted anyone for secession. You’d think the conquering heroes would want to justify themselves in court. It never, ever was officially declared illegal, was it?
“this legal theory was tested...and lost. We then had an internal war over it and the people fighting for thus idea lost.”
That hardly settles it, Mr. Might Makes Right.
By the way, what are these non-war tests of which you speak? Did SCOTUS ever declare popular sovereignty null? Or was it more like various sections threatened secession, then nothing came of it. Or Jackson threatened South Carolina, and it flinched, so nothing came of it.
I always thought it was significant the feds never prosecuted anyone for secession. You’d think the conquering heroes would want to justify themselves in court. It never, ever was officially declared illegal, was it?
yet you continue with such dishonest lines of reasoning in spite of the testimony against your positions.
I'm saying that the SCOTUS ruled the law constitutional. How is it dishonest to cite objective reality?
Curious though what your motivation is for posting all this on FR.
I dunno, a dedication to keeping in touch with what is happening in the real world as opposed to some idealized hypothetical world? How about that? Have facts fallen that far out of favor?
I always thought it was significant the feds never prosecuted anyone for secession. You’d think the conquering heroes would want to justify themselves in court. It never, ever was officially declared illegal, was it?
So... the Confederacy didn't really lose kinda sorta because the Union didn't say "Simon Says" or something?
“Wow, well you’d better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway”
Your sarcasm reveals a profound ignorance. The very fact that the case got to them means someone had standing on other grounds. Once it’s there they rule, like I said, based on a presumption of constitutionality. Like in the NFL, where the call on the field stands unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. Any old excuse will do. So long as it could be viewed as a tax—and Roberts’ language was that weak—it passes muster.
Which isn’t to say it was a legal tax. That issue wax deferred. All he said was that it could be seen as a tax, and left it at that. It remains for future complaintants to get them to rule on whether the mandate penalty/tax is proper.
“Just nobody bothered to cite the 10th amendment when making them”
They don’t have to. Like I said, it was superfluous in the first place. And the commerce clause arguments of the dissenting opinions were pure 10th amendment even if they didn’t say so. You have to understand that in addition to the Constitution and precedent, there is the way lawyers talk and judges hear. They just don’t talk about the 10th amendment much anymore. Which is not to say its logic doesn’t still inform arguments.
“So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court”
Look, I realize when SCOTUS rules people abide. It gets the say, and people treat it like the law. But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even? Anything but silent acceptance and moving on is utopian fantasy cloudcuckooland talk?
“conservativism applied to make-believe worlds”
Yeah, you’re all about the hardnised reality. Just the facts. Might makes right, so we better get back the might. Pointless comparing life to something outside the here and now, like how the Constitution is actually written, or my thoughts which don’t fit conventional opinion enough to win us the next election, or the past, or any kind of philosophy. Bunch of nambypamby pansyass thinking, is all that is. Give me facts, not thoughts.
You’re like a human adding machine. But you know what they say? Junk in, junk out.
Real world? Hypothetical world?
OK, let me type this really, really slowly.
In the real world, Obamacare was taken to the Supreme Court and found constitutional. We can argue about the stupidity of the ruling but it is what it is.
In the hypothetical world, the ruling doesn't matter or wouldn't have happened or Iron Man would have blown up Obama's secret base or whatever.
Real: Obamacare is the law of the land.
Hypothetical: torch-wielding mob storms Congress and overthrows the bastards.
I realize that hypothetical world is more fun, but if we want to be conservative activists and effect real change in where this country is headed, we have to do it in the real world.
“Wow, well you’d better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway”
Your sarcasm reveals a profound ignorance. The very fact that the case got to them means someone had standing on other grounds. Once it’s there they rule, like I said, based on a presumption of constitutionality. Like in the NFL, where the call on the field stands unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. Any old excuse will do. So long as it could be viewed as a tax—and Roberts’ language was that weak—it passes muster.
Which isn’t to say it was a legal tax. That issue wax deferred. All he said was that it could be seen as a tax, and left it at that. It remains for future complaintants to get them to rule on whether the mandate penalty/tax is proper.
“Just nobody bothered to cite the 10th amendment when making them”
They don’t have to. Like I said, it was superfluous in the first place. And the commerce clause arguments of the dissenting opinions were pure 10th amendment even if they didn’t say so. You have to understand that in addition to the Constitution and precedent, there is the way lawyers talk and judges hear. They just don’t talk about the 10th amendment much anymore. Which is not to say its logic doesn’t still inform arguments.
“So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court”
Look, I realize when SCOTUS rules people abide. It gets the say, and people treat it like the law. But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even? Anything but silent acceptance and moving on is utopian fantasy cloudcuckooland talk?
“conservativism applied to make-believe worlds”
Yeah, you’re all about the hardnised reality. Just the facts. Might makes right, so we better get back the might. Pointless comparing life to something outside the here and now, like how the Constitution is actually written, or my thoughts which don’t fit conventional opinion enough to win us the next election, or the past, or any kind of philosophy. Bunch of nambypamby pansyass thinking, is all that is. Give me facts, not thoughts.
You’re like a human adding machine. But you know what they say? Junk in, junk out.
“Wow, well you’d better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway”
Your sarcasm reveals a profound ignorance. The very fact that the case got to them means someone had standing on other grounds. Once it’s there they rule, like I said, based on a presumption of constitutionality. Like in the NFL, where the call on the field stands unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. Any old excuse will do. So long as it could be viewed as a tax—and Roberts’ language was that weak—it passes muster.
Which isn’t to say it was a legal tax. That issue wax deferred. All he said was that it could be seen as a tax, and left it at that. It remains for future complaintants to get them to rule on whether the mandate penalty/tax is proper.
“Just nobody bothered to cite the 10th amendment when making them”
They don’t have to. Like I said, it was superfluous in the first place. And the commerce clause arguments of the dissenting opinions were pure 10th amendment even if they didn’t say so. You have to understand that in addition to the Constitution and precedent, there is the way lawyers talk and judges hear. They just don’t talk about the 10th amendment much anymore. Which is not to say its logic doesn’t still inform arguments.
“So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court”
Look, I realize when SCOTUS rules people abide. It gets the say, and people treat it like the law. But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even? Anything but silent acceptance and moving on is utopian fantasy cloudcuckooland talk?
“conservativism applied to make-believe worlds”
Yeah, you’re all about the hardnosed reality. Just the facts. Might makes right, so we better get back the might. Pointless comparing life to something outside the here and now, like how the Constitution is actually written, or my thoughts which don’t fit conventional opinion enough to win us the next election, or the past, or any kind of philosophy. Bunch of nambypamby pansyass thinking, is all that is. Give me facts, not thoughts.
You’re like a human adding machine. But you know what they say? Junk in, junk out.
You have shown yourself for who and what you are: insincere.
I'm sincere, all right.
Let me explain why you are on FR: to shake your fist at reality until it gets off your lawn.
Good luck with that. Really.
“the Confederacy didn’t really lose kinda sorta because the Union didn’t say ‘Simon Says’ or something?”
Something. The Union won in bullets and shells and so forth. But did it win in court, was the question. I realize you think Might Makes Right and can’t be bothered with fantastical alternatives to history. Just saying so far as I know there were plans to try Jeff Davis and possibly others as traitors based on secession as illegal. They never went through with it. Why, on earth, if the issue was settled?
But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even?
Of course we can. And you're right that we should.
My only point is this: to what end? As far as I can tell, these legal assaults on the Obamacare tax are not in the offing because that is, for now, a legal dead end.
When it comes to nullification, who is going to rule on that? Unless there's another Supreme Court that I haven't read about, then nullification is not going to fly. If the SC law passes, is Nikki Haley going to stand in the doorway of insurance agencies and prevent people from buying insurance or something? How is this going to work?
In understand the value of protest actions -- I really do, but what are we going to do in substance? What about my suggestion that we* formulate a market-based alternative and use that to get an Obamacare exemption? If we did that, there would be no conflict with the law. We would use Obamacare's own provisions to render it irrelevant.
* By "we" I mean those among us with the chops to formulate health care policy.
In the real world Obama is president, Obamacare is law, SCOTUS has never been overturned on Wickard, Kelo, Helvering, Penn Central, the Gold Clause Cases, Home Building and Loan, Carolene Products, the Shreveport Rate Cases, Miller, Korematsu, Bakke, much of McConnell, etc. The draft is not involuntary servitude, we fight endless wars around the globe for...something, the national debt is more than GDP, not only will we not reform entitlement programs but we keep adding them, everyone including me is a hopeless egalitarian, we have if not pure socialism at the very least used to be called fascism before Hitler warped its meaning to most ears, the sector that pays all the taxes is accused of not paying its fair share and people believe it, healthcare, “food justice,” free cell phones, free contraception, free college education, free healthcare, and countless other things are becoming inalienable rights.
The real world sucks. We need to compare it to something outside itself to understand it.
The real world sucks. We need to compare it to something outside itself to understand it.
I see a lot of comparing and not a whole lot of understanding. I would give this intellectual exercise a great deal more credit if it produced results. My fear is that we're going to spend the rest of the century cursing the status quo and saying, "Remember 2010? That was awesome!"
We’ve already gone over this. You think nullification is stupid and a dead end. I agree it may be a dead end, but think lost causes are worth fighting. No one, I think, is saying there is nothing else to do, and I doubt very much time at all has been spent in the country at large on nullification or challenges in grounds of the mandate being an illegal tax, etc.
I like arguing for practicality’s sake. But why do you need to go so far down hardnose lane? If there’s no practical hope of convincing the public at large that SCOTUS doesn’t have final say, do we have to pretend that they do by right, too? Do we have to pretend SCOTUS is infallible because nullification won’t work? Does it all have to be it’s over, it’s over, they ruled and that’s that?
Even if I went all the way with you, scorning Make Believe and anything that wasn’t designed to appeal to people who had never read word one of the Constitution, yours is a wild overcorrection. It’s enough to say nullification is a beautiful dream made vain by civil war. You don’t have to also say SCOTUS is by definition right and that anything else us unrealistic and idle fantasy.
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.