Update on Nullifying ObamaCare that is being done in SC
Judge Napolitano talks about the power of the States to nullify the Fed
South Carolina Constructional amendment nullifying ObamaCare was heard at the SC State house Columbia Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:00 AM
Hear Rep. Tim Scott speak about H4181 the legislation (H4181) that he introduced to protect South Carolina families from "Obamacare":
If you are in South Carolina, you are needed in Columbia to show support for this Constructional amendment nullifying ObamaCare.
If you are NOT in South Carolina you are needed to do the same thing in your state.
Support State Nullification of Obamacare Law just passed by Washington. The State must protect us from intrusion into our health care. Representative Jeff Duncan also introduced a similar Bill, H 4240. In the interests of time Representative Jeff Duncan agreed to give the hearing over to Rep. Tim Scott's H4181
Tim Scott's legislation to nullify the government-run healthcare legislation received a favorable 3-2 vote in the judicial law subcommittee meeting at the State House.
H 4181 Joint Resolution, By Scott, Long and Haley
Similar (H 4240)
A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SO AS TO ADD A NEW SECTION PRESERVING THE FREEDOM OF SOUTH CAROLINIANS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVIDING OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, BY PROHIBITING ANY LAW, REGULATION, OR RULE TO COMPEL AN INDIVIDUAL, EMPLOYER, OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, BY ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES WITHOUT PENALTIES OR FINES FOR THESE DIRECT PAYMENTS, BY PROVIDING THAT THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS MUST NOT BE PROHIBITED BY LAW, REGULATION, OR RULE, BY PROVIDING THOSE INCENTIVES IN WHICH THE RIGHTS PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY, AND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DEFINITIONS.
View full text
Rep. Walton McLeod tried to filibuster, and obfuscate the issue, by making personal attacks on one of the people, who spoke in favor of the bill. Rep. Walton McLeod asked the speaker where he had grown up. When the speaker answered that he had grown up in Louisiana, Rep. Walton McLeod proceeded to attempt to change the discussion to the subject of Louisiana law. This is a subject that is outrageously irrelevant to the South Carolina bill which the committee was considering.
A video of Rep. Walton McLeod's obfuscation, filibuster, and personal attack may be viewed here:
Filibuster Obfuscation from SC Rep. Walton McLeod
This was nothing more than an attempt to eat up the time, and prevent a vote.
Rep. Walton McLeod will get what he has earned for doing that.
When Rep. Walton McLeod saw that he could not debate the facts, he tried to shift the discussion from the message to the messenger.
Walton J. McLeod [D] Businessman, Attorney
Dist. No. 40 - Lexington & Newberry Cos.
Contact Address: (H) 308 Pomaria St., Little Mountain, 29075 Bus. (803) 345-1538 Home (803) 945-7461 (C) 422B Blatt Bldg., Columbia, 29201 Bus. (803) 734-3276
Send message to Representative McLeod
Shame on Everyone for Obamacare
Confrontational Politics by H. L Richardson
None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Paperback) by Gary Allen
This is NOT a problem that will be solved by a Constitutional Convention
The real question about Constitutional Convention is this:
Do we need to give the power to write a new constitution to the very people who have been ignoring, usurping, and trying to destroy the constitution that we have now?
The video below is made specifically for state legislators, by a state legislator.
Constitutional Convention is explained.
Beware Article V
Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)
Beware Article V (part 2 of 4)
Beware Article V (part 3 of 4)
Beware Article V (part 4 of 4)
A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for making a small change.
A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for enforcing an existing law.
A Constitutional Convention is a procedure for giving us an ENTIRELY NEW Constitution.
THERE IS NO WAY TO "LIMIT" a Constitutional Convention TO ONE ISSUE.
If you want one amendment, then you present an amendment.
You do not put the ENTIRE Constitution at risk for one amendment.
The only reason that Constitutional Convention is being promoted as the solution TO JUST ONE problem, is that the hidden agenda would be considered to be outrageous.
If government ignores the constitution and usurps power now, what would we have if they could write a new constitution?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "for a balanced budget". THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to return power to the states."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to stop illegal aliens."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to restore the right to keep and bear arms".
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to limit terms".
THERE IS only one kind of Constitutional Convention.
THE only kind of Constitutional Convention; that can be convened is
a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution.
A Constitutional Convention is a legislative body;
which operates ABOVE the limitations of the Constitution.
This makes it more powerful, and MORE DANGEROUS, than any other legislative body.
This is not an opinion, but it if a fact of law.
A Constitutional Convention is a means of DESTROYING the American Republic. A Constitutional Convention is opening a "Pandora's box" for RADICAL change. Once the "genie is out of the bottle" no one can control it.
The last time that we had a Constitutional Convention was in 1787,
when we got the Constitution that we now have.
That Constitutional Convention was convened to make some small changes in the Articles of Confederation. Instead we got a new Constitution.
We were LUCKY that time.
Those who were at that Constitutional Convention were the leaders of a freedom movement;
which had just defeated a tyranny.
Our problem has NOTHING to do with the constitution.
Our problem has to do with the IGNORING OF THE constitution.
Those who ignore the constitution would like nothing better than to make their usurpation legal,
by throwing out the constitution, at a Constitutional Convention.
It was ILLEGAL usurpation that has enabled an "elite" class to hijack our nation.
It is that "elite" class; who want to con foolish people into destroying the constitution.
The constitution is the best document for the protection of freedom,
that has ever been written.
We only need to adhere to it.
YES, The Founding Fathers saw a possibility of a situation,
where a need might arise for COMPLETELY SCRAPING THE CONSTITUTION.
That is not what has happened TODAY.
The only thing that has happened is that there is now a cabal of would be tyrants;
who are getting tired of OCCASIONALLY having to adhere to the constitution.
These would be tyrants would like to con enough ignorant people into letting them DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION,
so that they can usher in totalitarianism.
Having a Constitutional Convention would be like letting your worst enemy
give you a heart and lung transplant, and a castration,
as a cure for hiccups.
Having a Constitutional Convention would be like burning the house down
as a means of accomplishing pest control.
Article V of The Constitution lays out the only two ways to change The Constitution:
1. The Amendment process: A specific, and clearly defined, change that is limited to what is written in the amendment.
2. The Constitutional Convention: A process to scrap the entire constitution and replace it with something else. ANY type of amendment can be considered.
Here is a clear statement of the difference between the effect of The Amendment process and calling for a Constitutional Convention:
"If you have the best automobile in the world, you don't throw it away if the carburetor is not working. You fix it," he said. "The same is true of the Constitution. That's what the amendment process is all about."
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger,
Boston Globe, August 21, 1987
We understand that there are those who want to destroy the American constitution. We also understand that it would be foolish for those thugs to admit that it is their goal to destroy the American constitution. It would be much more clever if those thugs were to claim that they only wanted to make a few small changes. Of course, if it was true that they only wanted to make a few small changes, then they would not need a Constitutional Convention. They would simply propose those amendments.
Imagine this scenario:
You wake up in the middle of the night to a noise in your living room.
You grab your gun, and you find two thugs loading bags full of valuables.
You hold the gun at the ready.
One of the thugs says:
"Now that is a really fine gun. But you really need to clean it. Why not hand it over to me, and I will clean it for you."
The other thug says
"Oh there is nothing to worry about. If you do not like the way he uses the gun then of course you can insist that he give it back!"
You would say "How stupid do you think I am?"
When we see someone asking us to hand over the gun of a constitutional convention, we must conclude that he is one of two things:
1. He is an unbelievably stupid fool
2. He is a thug, with an ulterior motive, who thinks that the WE are unbelievably stupid.
There is a limit to the amount of time for which it is possible to assume that this is an unbelievably stupid suggestion, being made because of mere stupidity. Eventually it will become clear that we are dealing with a thug, with an ulterior motive, who thinks that the WE are unbelievably stupid.
IT WILL BE JUST AS EASY to ignore a new constitution as it is to ignore the one that we have now.
IT just will NOT BE NECESSARY to ignore a new constitution,
since it will say what the New World Order wants it to say.
The problem is not what the constitution SAYS.
The problem is what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.
We need to change what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.
We do not need to change what the constitution SAYS.
Constitutional Journal: A Correspondent's Report from the Convention of 1787 (Hardcover) by Jeffrey St. John (Author), Warren E. Burger (Foreword)
Constitutional Journal: A Correspondent's Report from the Convention of 1787
We Hold These Truths: A Reverent Review of the U. S. Constitution 1993 Revised Edition (Paperback) by Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald
We Hold These Truths: A Reverent Review of the U. S. Constitution 1993 Revised Edition