The South Carolina Obamacare Nullification Bill needs your support for passage. H3101 has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, where chairman Greg Delleney is waffling. He recently proposed completely removing ALL nullification language from the legislation and leaving it as just an opposition to a State-run insurance exchange.
1. If you live in South Carolina, call Rep. Delleney and let him know you want H3101 passed out of committee as written. Remind him that his obligation lies with the people of South Carolina, not special interests and that he has a duty to interpose and protect the people he serves. You can find his contact information HERE.
2. Also contact other committee members and urge them to vote for the bill passed as written. You can find committee member contact information HERE.
4. On Wed, Feb 6th, The Judiciary Committee will hold a public meeting on H3101. The Hearing will be held on Wednesday, morning 6 February at eleven o’clock. Members of the public may speak on the bill. Those who do should arrive about 10:30 in order to sign up in time to speak. The meeting is supposed to last at least one hour. Use the talking points below to make your case in this public hearing.
INFORMATION, BACKGROUND AND TALKING POINTS
When it comes to nullification of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the feet of some Republicans in the South Carolina legislature reportedly got cold over the last few weeks.
Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill to nullify Obamacare (HB3101) last month. It garnered 25 cosponsors and was ultimately referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Committee chair Rep. Greg Delleney apparently fears nullification. He proposed changes to HB3101 that would strip all nullification language and remove direction to the South Carolina General Assembly to “adopt and enact all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ within the limits of this State.” The revised bill would only address the health insurance exchanges, leaving the rest of the PPACA intact in South Carolina.
It remains unclear why this so-called conservative refuses to stand up to the Obama administration and stop implementation of Obamacare. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the legitimacy of nullification from a historical, moral and philosophical perspective.
Or perhaps he just supports Obamacare.
SCGOP Chairman Chad Connelly apparently has the same problem.
He initially had a statement of support for nullification of the health care act delivered and read at a big rally on the South Carolina capitol steps on Jan. 8. A few weeks later, Connelly sent out an email reversing his position. In the email, he links to a Heritage Foundation article opposing nullification. Interestingly, in 1993 the Heritage Foundation proposed an individual health care mandate, now a crucial piece Obamacare.
Some South Carolina grass-roots activist say they think money from big insurance and health care interest that would benefit from the scheme might be influencing state lawmakers.
“Some Republicans here are pushing the expansion of the Medicaid exchanges,” one activist said. “The healthcare lobbyists are out in full force saying it will bring jobs to South Carolina and $500 million in federal dollars. Disgusting.”
Republicans backing away from nullification hide behind this notion that it stands as unconstitutional and make excuses about not wanting to alienate African-American voters with “nullification talk.” They have their history wrong.
Nullification is historically, morally and philosophically the rightful remedy
Doesn’t the Supremacy Clause make state nullification unconstitutional?
No. The Supremacy Clause reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution – that is, in keeping with the powers enumerated to the federal government – stand as legitimate laws. All other acts are usurpation, and by definition null, void and of no force. An illegal act cannot stand supreme. In fact, it is criminal and should be punished like any other crime.
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. – 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Doesn’t the Supreme Court make the final determination on the constitutionality of an act?
No. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the SCOTUS sole authority to determine the extent of federal power. The people of the states created the federal government and delegated it specific powers, reserving all other powers to themselves, their state and local governments and their sheriffs. The South Carolina ratifying document makes this fact clear.
This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.
If the people of South Carolina delegated powers and placed limitations on them in the first place, it logically follows that, in the last resort, the people of South Carolina (through their elected representatives) determine the extent of the power that they delegated.
Thomas Jefferson succinctly outlined the final authority of the states in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.
The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
In order to invalidate nullification, you must dismantle the entire premise that the ratifiers based their approval of the Constitution upon. You must unravel Jefferson’s logic.
Isn’t Nullification racist?
During the Civil Rights battles of the 1950s and 60s, some southerners did appeal to the principle of nullification in an attempt to sustain segregation. But the improper use of a tool does not negate the value of that tool. Just because a murderer uses a hammer to bludgeon his victim to death does not diminish the hammer’s utility for driving nails. In fact, northern abolitionists appealed to the principles of nullification, even quoting John Calhoun by name, to support their position and resist the draconian Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This act denied due process to any black person accused of escaping slavery. Northern states passed personal liberty laws in defiance of this “court-approved” federal act, and granted due process rights to black people accused of escaping slavery. These states also refused to cooperate with federal officials facilitating slave roundups. Supporters of nullification stand on the moral high ground. They can uphold the legitimacy of the principles while condemning their use by segregationists. On the other hand, anti-nullifiers must emphatically reject the principles in all cases, even when used by northern states to protect the basic civil liberties their black citizens. The anti-nullifier stands and cheers in support as federal officials haul black men and women, some of them legitimately free citizens, south into slavery on the mere word of a white man. They not only cheer, they obediently join in the chase, as directed by the Fugitive Slave Act.
No enumerated power gives the federal government the authority to create and run a health care system. That responsibility remains with the states and the people. It counts as a gross overreach of power in the same vein as the Sedition Act of 1798 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Are you going to allow Pres. Obama to blatantly break the highest law of the land? Are you going to obediently cooperate with him? Or are you going to do your duty and stop him in South Carolina?
A committee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 6.