Senator Brad Hutto is against South Carolina Sovereignty

During the Judiciary subcommittee meeting on 3/3/2009 the room was filled with supporters of the legislation.

Several spoke in behalf of s.424 and 4 of the 5 committee members seemed to approve. Chairman Larry Martin was most encouraging. He leaned forward from time to time, obviously encouraging the citizen speakers to feel comfortable as they presented their viewpoints.

One Senator, however, was decidedly uncongenial. Senator Brad Hutto of Orangeburg made his annoyance obvious.  More than once he asked why anyone would think that this meaningless resolution could change anything.

“The question is short and sweet, what is the practical effect of this bill?” Hutto asked. "I completely support the Constitution. We have a system that determines the Constitution. That’s what the federal courts are for.”

Noting that a similar Sovereignty Resolution was passed in 1996 to no apparent effect, Senator Brad Hutto used colorful language to mock our naive sincerity, “Why, Senator Hutto asked, “do we want to waste a $.42 stamp sending a meaningless resolution to D.C?” 

Discussion then ended with Senator Larry Bright’s answer, “Then we didn’t have 26 other states standing together.”

Again on 3/10/2009 Senator Hutto was the spoiler. Only he and Senator Laurie, of the 24 Senators present during the Judiciary session, spoke against the bill. Senator Hutto said the same things against the bill that he had said on the 3rd.

It went something like this: I believe in the 10th. The answer is, if you don’t like it, take it to court. Nobody is going to read this or change anything. If you don’t like it take it to court. The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court. Joe Wilson wrote a bill just like this one and he got to Washington before it did. Just a way to get Democrats. I’m going to write a Minority Report.

What Senator Hutto doesn’t know is that History has not ended.

You can let Senator Hutto, District 40, Orangeburg, know how you feel here.

A report on the SC Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of S.424 the State Sovereignty Resolution

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 10^th 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 9^th and 10^th 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.

The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee sends Sovereignty Resolution to Resolution

Below is recorded an approximate transcript of the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee meeting of 3/10/2009 dealing with s.424.

Senator Joel Lourie: I’m reading an article with Senator Bright on CNN. If this is about the Stimulus bill, lets do a Resolution about the Stimulus Bill

Senator Lee Bright: Lets divide this …I don’t mind taking up both…

Chairman Larry Martin: This bill stands alone. It concerns other rights and privileges. When you talk about overstepping…I remember the case of a gun law…I think it was Arizona. The Supreme Court said that the Commerce Clause did not stretch that far. There is a broad range of things that congress gets into…

Senator Robert Ford: I just think its directed at the Stimulus Package. If it is, why not say so? I am against the Stimulus, too. I read where one state is talking about enforcement… Is it about the Stimulus? I appreciate this - on the surface it makes good sense. Do you believe in Medicare? in Social Security?

Bright: It violates…

Ford: Federal highway system?

Bright: Yes, its not a Federal responsibility.

Bright: Its directed at the Federal Government. If you want to get into the Stimulus Package… I am sorry our grand children will have to suffer – The phrase I like is, “Who will bail out the bailers? We had a discussion about the Tea Party – They wanted the tea but they sent it back.

Ford: I’ve got to respect my Republican Colleagues – They know more about what they believe in than we do. They are sincere. But the media will say South Carolina is against the Stimulus. You should give us a chance to deal with the Stimulus… The Federal Government doesn’t understand the 10th amendment. If they understood the 10th amendment 720,000 people would not have died. The Feds didn’t understand it. If they did they never would have interfered with the states. Give me another example besides the Stimulus.

Someone: Drinking age

Bright: Yes we ought to have a say…and then…immigration –

Someone: What about Real ID? (applause)

Bright: Yes, lots of things…Education ought to be under the State.

Ford: That’s enough.

Bright: Want some more?

Ford: You made us pass the seat belt law.

Someone: We agreed with it.

Ford: Tell me something…You can’t have it both ways. At the threat of losing Federal dollars…Sometimes its all right…sometimes not.

Bright: Look at the Bill

Ford: You’re not going to be like the rest of the Senate. When the Federal government…Cause I don’t like them telling me what to do. If you are not going to buckle than I’m going to support you.

Bright: I'm not going to buckle.

Ford: I think you just don’t like the Stimulus

Bright: It’s like a house at the beach when there’s erosion getting worse. Sooner or later you look for your house and its just ocean.

Ford: But where do you stand? The folks in the audience say yeah. I want to hear it from you.

Bright: For me and mine…

Senator Shane Martin: I’m new here. I don’t think the Stimulus bill package came up yet when we introduced this bill. I’m going to vote for it.

Senator Brad Hutto: I believe in the 10th. The answer is, if you don’t like it, take it to court. Nobody is going to read this or change anything. If you don’t like it take it to court. The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court. Joe Wilson wrote a bill just like this one and he got to Washington before it did. Just a way to get Democrats. I’m going to write a Minority Report.

Senator George Malloy: More or less reduces it to the Russ Limbaugh bill. (laughter)

Hutto: I withdrew that one. I introduced it in the spirit of goodnaturedness.

Bright: It’s on 31 agendas. South Carolina needs to take the lead.

Senator Shane Massey: I am embarrassed that we waited till now. We should have done it during the last administration. I don’t think of this as a partisan measure. They are screwing things up

Senator George Campsen: The Senator from Aiken is right – The last several decades there has been an expansion of Federal power. The first 10 amendments were passed by very skeptical states who had just fought against the most powerful nation...before they would cede any power.

This is very timely. Will it have any influence in Washington when bills get passed? It’s not political, its a civic issue. It’s not going to affect bills from Washington but is it not a good statement to say? It’s not partisan.

I remember one of the landmark decisions – With the Migratory Bird Rule the federal government claimed jurisdiction over wetlands all over the country, calling them Navigable Waters of the U.S., because hunting makes ducks affect interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down, put the ball back into our court. This bill is not partisan. Its not even hostile to the federal government. It says please honor our rights.You know what they are going to do with it? They are going to treat it just like we do (pause)

Campbell: The counties? (laughter)

Campsen: the Governor’s budget – make it a doorstop.

Bright: Senator Malloy and Senator Hutto, please consider not writing a Minority Report.

Senator Michael Mulvney: My 9 year old daughter asked me, after seeing me kiss her mother goodbye one morning, “Why do you tell someone you love them when they already know it?” Sometimes at my church we put ashes on our forehead as part of a ritual. My wife and I have renewed our vows a couple of times...

Miles: Senator Malloy you are right about the Big Brother issues.

Bright: We must teach our children…

Miles: Senator Massey is right. We should have done this before.

Malloy: Senator Bright, you presumed I would put a Minority Report out – Your partisan skepticism may be a benign thing. But your presumption is wrong. I think there will be a Minority Report but it won’t be mine.

Bright: I apologize.

Larry Martin: I think some of the House language should be changed. Language about “state of emergency without state legislative approval.” I don’t know if you want to get into national disasters. Senator Bright’s resolution is good

Lourie: I have a few questions. Sounds good. Can somebody tell me why we are doing this? Our feelings as they relate to the 10th amendment…

Someone: Congress uses the commerce clause - stretches it as far as it can be stretched.

Martin: The resolution urges congress and the administration not to overstep in areas not specifically adhering to the confines of the constitution – and what we are about as a State. We do have an amendment to make this deal with all government agencies – not instead of or before South Carolina.

At this point one of the freshmen Senators asked for a roll-call vote. The Chairman asked for a vote of those calling for a roll call. Apparently it takes 1/10th of the Senate to call for one. When asked 6 or 7 raised their hands.

Senator Malloy voiced some impatience with this. He said that if the committee was going to vote on some items this way, than why not on all items. Senator Jake Knotts then gave the freshmen a lengthily piece of advice about the danger of demanding roll-call votes. They would learn, he told them, that this action would come back to bite them.

The Chairman asked for the vote a second time and the same men voted the same way so the committee vote was taken by the committee members one by one.

The resolution passed by a vote of 15/6.

Senators Hutto, Lourie, Malloy, Williams, Scott and Nicholson voted against sending the resolution to the full Senate for a vote.

There are omissions and some inaccuracies in the above transcript because the discussion took place faster than I could take it all down. If I have misreported any passage please let me know so that I can put it right.

Senator John L. Scott is against Sovereignty

Several Citizens visited with Senator John L. Scott who represents Richalnd County (district 19).

The Citizens asked that Senator Scott support s.424, the Sovereignty bill.

Senator Scott was not willing to do so.

Senator Scott thinks that the federal government is not too big.

Senator Scott thinks that the federal government is not too intrusive or out of line.

Senator Scott likes the inflation money that the federal government is going to print up and give away to its friends.

Senator John L. Scott is not interested in the Sovereignty Resolution because Senator Scott believes that the federal government should be supreme.

Senator Scott believes in top-down government.

Senator Scott does not believe that the people’s rights come first and that government is rightfully limited.

The Citizens informed him that we have a Constitution and we have a 9th and 10th Amendment.

The Citizens asked that Senator Scott support the Oath he took.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been elected, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God."

He said he'd look at it.

South Carolina Sovereignty Bill Moves Closer to Passage

S424 received a vote up by the subcommittee on 3/3/2009

The room was filled with citizens representing themselves, as well as a number of individuals from The League of the South, The Palmetto Heritage Coalition and The Campaign for Liberty. Four citizens spoke before the subcommittee: Robert Slimp, Matt Kneece, Jim Hanks, and Steve Isom.

Matt Kneece spoke forcefully about the need to follow the will of the people. He pointed out that the federal government pursues wars that 70% of Americans oppose.

As Kneece rose to leave Hutto asked, ”Do you think we should have government by polls?

Matt Kneece answered, “No, but we should take them to count and elect new officials.”

Other speakers pointed out that this was a historic moment. One said that the federal government was trying to ram the “stimulus” package through to the groups in the states that they favored without allowing the Governors or Legislatures any say in how the money is to be spent, and that if states wished to retain any autonomy at all they had to stand up to this.

After the speakers finished Hutto said, “The question is short and sweet, what is the practical effect of this bill? I completely support the Constitution. We have a system that determines the Constitution. That’s what the federal courts are for.

Martin said: The stimulus package passed 4-2 (South Carolina U.S. congress members’ vote count). We can’t pick and choose which laws to follow. That would lead to anarchy. But we should pass it.

Rankin said that Joe Wilson used to make quite a few resolutions similar to this one. It became something of a joke.

Martin agreed, “You are right. We did it in 1996. It didn’t make a difference.”

Bright said: “Then we didn’t have 26 other states standing together.”

The vote was:

Larry Martin, 2, Pickens county: Up

Lee Bright, 12, Spartanburg county: Up

Tom Davis, 46, Beaufort county: Up

Luke Rankin, 33, Horry county: Up

Bradley Hutto, 40, Orangeburg, Allendale, Bamburg, Barnwell counties: Down

The members of the Judiciary Committee appear below. Contact them to support this bill.

Judiciary:

McConnell, Glenn F. , Chm. cosponsor
Martin, Larry A. cosponsor
Knotts, John M. "Jake" , Jr. cosponsor
Campsen, George E. "Chip" III cosponsor
Cleary, Raymond E. III cosponsor
Campbell, Paul G. , Jr. cosponsor
Bright, Lee cosponsor
Coleman, Creighton B. cosponsor
Davis, Thomas C. "Tom" cosponsor
Martin, Shane R. cosponsor
Mulvaney, J. Michael "Mick" cosponsor
Rose, Michael T. cosponsor
Shoopman, Phillip W. cosponsor

Ford, Robert
Rankin, Luke A.
Hutto, C. Bradley
Malloy, Gerald
Sheheen, Vincent A.
Lourie, Joel
Williams, Kent M.
Massey, A. Shane
Nicholson, Floyd
Scott, John L. , Jr.

SOVEREIGNTY BILL H.3509 PASSES SOUTH CAROLIAN HOUSE

The South Carolina House version of the Sovereignty bill H.3059 has passed on Feb. 26, 2009.

The Concurrent Resolution H.3509 freedom-fighter sponsors were Representatives Michael Pitts, Jeff Duncan, Michael Thompson, Don Bowen, Mac Toole, Tommy Stringer, Dan Hamilton, Gene Pinson, Eric Bedingfield, Garry Smith, Dan Cooper, Kris Crawford, Deborah Long, Philip Lowe, Wendy Nanney, Phil Owens, Ted Pitts, Rex Rice, Thad Viers, Brian White, Nikki Haley and Alan Clemmons.

Click on their names to congratulate them!

South Carolina S.424 Sovereignty Bill Cosponsors are True Patriots

On February 12 2009, bill S. 424 was introduced during the118th Session of the South Carolina General Assembly, by freedom-fighter Senators Lee Bright, Shane Martin, Thomas Alexander, Paul Campbell, Michael Fair, Jake Knotts, Ronnie Cromer, "Mick" Mulvaney, Danny Verdin, Larry Martin, Phillip Shoopman, Michael Rose, Glenn McConnell, David Thomas, Raymond Cleary, John Courson, Creighton Coleman, Tom Davis, Glenn Reese, Kevin Bryant and "Chip" Campsen, "Larry" Grooms, William O'Dell, Harvey Peeler.

These are the patriotic South Carolina men who are standing up to the corrupt Washington regime.

These South Carolina Senators cosponsored the Sovereignty bill demanding that the federal government return to its legitimate functions.

Statesman:
a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues.

In presenting this bill to the South Carolina Senate these men showed themselves to be much more than merely politicians. At this moment they exhibit the quality of principle when it is most needed.

Contact them

STEVE ISOM: PART OF THE SOLUTION

Steve Isom, District 1

1423 Jessamine St., Cayce, SC 29033

Telephone: 796-9832

Email: isom@advancedk.com

Yesterday I talked to Steve Isom who is on the Cayce City Council.

Steve Isom believes in TRNSPARENCY in government.

Steve Isom believes in SMALL GOVERNMENT.

Steve Isom knows that Cayce should not try to micromanage its development.


He knows that whether smoking is allowed on privately owned property (regardless of whether it used for business purposes or not) is a PROPERTY RIGHTS issue and therefore, the owner has the sole right to allow or disallow it. No government has any right interfering in this matter.

Steve Isom is one of the GOOD.