This summery was written by Talbert Black and can be seen on the Campaign for Liberty site. I asked him if I could post it here and he said, “Sure!”
Summary: On Tuesday, 10 March, 2009, the committee voted to give a favorable report to the full Senate on S.424. The vote was 16-6, one Senator absent, two not voting. Senator Hutto, from Orangeburg, attached a minority report.
A minority report greatly reduces the chances of a date being scheduled in the Senate for a debate on the bill. This often means the bill dies, even though it receives a favorable report, because it is never heard by the full Senate. Be sure and call or write Senator Hutto, especially if you are in Orangeburg, and let him know how much you appreciate his minority report.
Action Items: Please write the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel, especially if you live in their county or their district. Also, please read the end of the report regarding comments made by Senator Knotts about roll call votes. Write or call him and let him know how you feel about that as well.
Details: Our team of activists, along with other activists from across the state, were there to witness the debate and record how the Senators voted. Several of the younger senators requested a roll call vote. The roll call vote allowed me to verify the accuracy of our recorded vote. We did very well, with only one vote recorded inaccurately, according to the official roll call of the committee. There was also one card that was not returned to me. The officially recorded results are:
The Senators who voted for a favorable report are:
Shoopman, District 5, Greenville
Knotts, District 23, Lexington
Massey, District 25, Edgefield
Campbell, District 44, Berkley
Campsen, District 43, Charleston
S. Martin, District 13, Spartanburg
Mulvaney, District 16, Lancaster
Rose, District 38, Dorchester
Davis, District 46, Beaufort
McConnell, District 41, Charleston
L. Martin, District 2, Pickens
Bright, District 12, Spartanburg
Rankin, District 33, Horry
Cleary, District 34, Georgetown
Senators present and not voting (counted as a yes) are:
Ford, District 42, Charleston
Coleman, District 17, Fairfield
Senators who voted against a favorable report (and against the 10th amendment of the US Constitution) are:
Nicholson, District 10, Greenwood
Scott, District 19, Richland
Lourie, District 22, Richland
Williams, District 30, Marion
Mallloy, District 29, Darlington
Hutto, District 40, Orangeburg
Senator not present:
Sheheen, District 27, Kershaw
I made notes on some of the comments that were made by the Senators during the debate. This is not an exhaustive list of all who spoke, merely those who caught my attention and who my pen was fast enough to catch.
Lourie: "Why do we need this?" then he tried desperately to set up a straw man argument saying that this bill was only introduced to make a statement against the "stimulus bill". This argument was carried on by most who spoke against the bill.
Bright: "This resolution should stand on it own!" The federal government is overstepping its bounds. SC needs to assert it's rights.
L. Martin: Indicated how the commerce clause has been stretched passed its limits by the FedGov and used as an excuse to extend their power and authority into places it doesn't belong. When asked by Senator Ford for examples of acts by the FedGov that the resolution would be directed against, indicating that it was only directed against the "stimulus package", Martin began a long list of items, going on for a couple of minutes. Several times Senator Ford tried to stop him, saying "enough", but Martin wasn't to be stopped. Finally, he paused and asked, "is that enough", to which Ford indicated it was. Martin replied, "I can keep going if you want me too." To the mirth of the audience, and many of the senators.
Ford: Asked why the Republicans did not stand up against the FedGov when the seat belt law was passed, nor when the drinking age was mandated to be 21 rather than 18. Many of the younger senators supported Ford's statement indicating that the legislative body needed to be consistent regardless of the party in power in Washington.
Ford said that he had no hope of the FedGov paying any attention to the resolution. Since 1860, the FedGov has paid no attention to states rights, he continued. If they had known and respected the meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments then, the 700 thousand Americans who lost their lives from 1861 to 1865 wouldn't have died. Many of us who heard him say that were asking each other, "Did he just say that?" We were pleased to discover that some of our legislators understand that!
Ford told Bright that if Bright would pledge to be consistently against the FedGov's unconstitutional authority, and not just oppose it when it suited Bright's agenda, and if Bright would author a resolution to denounce the "stimulus package", then Ford would support both the "stimulus denouncement" and the Sovereignty Resolution. Bright responded that he would pledge to be consistent, and that he would author a "stimulus denouncement" resolution.
Massey: Massey perhaps most succinctly and passionately stated the case. "Its not just a Democrat or just a Republican problem. Both are at fault. Both are screwing it up!" He brought cheers from the gallery, to the raised eyebrows of the chairman.
Several times there were cheers and applause from the gallery throughout the debate. I was surprised that Chairman McConnell did not ask the guards to clear or at least quiet the gallery. He exercised much reserve. Perhaps, he was enjoying it. For future reference to those who attended, cheers and applause are not allowed from the gallery. The chairman may choose to clear us out in the future.
A final remark about Senator Knotts' comments after the vote:
After the roll call vote was taken, Senator Knotts (who voted favorably) looked down at the freshman senators who had requested the roll call vote and said, "I just want to say something to you young senators who requested the roll call vote. I used to be where you are and feel like you do, that we need to put our votes on the record. I just want to warn you, that's a bumpy road to go down. Think hard before doing that again." Knott's emphasis is shown by my italics. Friendly advise, or a threat? Ask Representatives Haley and Ballentine, who were kicked off their powerful committees because they refused to drop their push for a law that would require roll call votes on essentially every bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment