Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

And 19 other states are following suit. IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

South Carolina General Assembly
118th Session, 2009-2010

Download This Bill in Microsoft Word format

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

S. 424

STATUS INFORMATION

Concurrent Resolution
Sponsors: Senators Bright, S. Martin, Alexander, Campbell, Fair, Knotts, Cromer, Mulvaney, Verdin, L. Martin, Shoopman, Rose, McConnell, Thomas, Cleary, Courson, Coleman, Davis, Reese and Campsen
Document Path: l:\s-res\lb\006tent.kmm.lb.docx

Introduced in the Senate on February 12, 2009
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary

Summary: Not yet available

HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/12/2009 Senate Introduced SJ-8
2/12/2009 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-8

View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site

VERSIONS OF THIS BILL

2/12/2009

(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

TO AFFIRM SOUTH CAROLINA'S SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OVER ALL POWERS NOT ENUMERATED AND GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the limited scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, the limited scope of authority defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, currently the states are treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

Be it further resolved that all governmental agencies, quasi-governmental agencies, and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the State of South Carolina, or all governmental agencies and their agents and employees, whose actions have effect on the inhabitants or lands or waters of the State of South Carolina, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future, within the Constitution of South Carolina, the South Carolina statutes, or the common law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as South Carolina's agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates that are beyond the scope of the federal government's constitutionally delegated powers.

Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, and each member of South Carolina's Congressional Delegation, all at Washington, D.C., and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of the legislatures of the other forty-nine states.

***IT IS TIME TO PUT POWER BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES***

This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO FUCKING WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

dbackjon wrote:This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO f**k[*] WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

Jon, I am puzzled...

...what specifically did the S.C. resolution state that you object to?

dbackjon wrote:This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO f**k[*] WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

Well, why keep trying? Kind of like gay marriage, it hasn't really worked so why keep trying? Stupid fcuking idiots with nothing better to do.

I know this has little to do with you marrying, and we've been over that before...I could care less you spend your life with. But, this is a part of the Constitution, and I know you think it shouldn't be followed. However, the states have this right and can do this if they so desire. If you don't like it, try to have the 10th Amendment abolished.

I do agree that they should have done this while Bush was in office, while Clinton was office, while Bush1 was in office, while Reagan was in office, etc. I am glad it's happening now.

And, the people who should be ashamed they are still in office is most of Congress who allowed Bush (and now Obama) to continue trampling on states' and individuals' rights. Including your superheroes Obama and Clinton who limited gays' freedoms...of course where are you bashing them?

I thought I had anger mgmt issues. Good to see that I am not the only poster who is fervent about just one particular subject. In my case, abortion. In d's case, gay marriage.

D, you're right, the idiots were silent when W was in the white house but they shouldn't have been. This should've been happening a long time ago. Better late than never and if we as a nation don't reign in our monster of a government, all of our rights will be gone before you know it. Dems and Repubs are not competitors, rather they are conspirators working to destroy us all, no matter OUR differences. Peace.

Local politiocal talk radio host, Matt Mittan, had Daniel Issa(sp?), Representative rom NH on his show yesterday talking about this very subject....I find it odd that 19 states have made a resolution regarding this issue, yet, there is not a peep in the national media....doesn't jive with their "Change" agenda....

dbackjon wrote:This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO f**k[*] WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

gaywad knows he's wrong and his cause is doomed.....we will never sanction deviant behavior in this State.....


LONG LIVE THE CALHOUN DOCTRINE!

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO f**k[*] WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

gaywad knows he's wrong and his cause is doomed.....we will never sanction deviant behavior in this State.....


LONG LIVE THE CALHOUN DOCTRINE!

....and he's familiar with doomed causes Jon, so take heed.....

Appaholic wrote:

citdog wrote:
gaywad knows he's wrong and his cause is doomed.....we will never sanction deviant behavior in this State.....


LONG LIVE THE CALHOUN DOCTRINE!

....and he's familiar with doomed causes Jon, so take heed.....

all things that are lost are highly valued.....especially


THE CAUSE

Also, thanks for showing the rest of the states how to lead by principle......

SC Gov. To Reluctantly Take Stimulus Funds

South Carolina's Republican governor said his state will accept money from President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan even though he is ideologically opposed to it.

http://www.wtov9.com/nationalnews/18749118/detail.html

(they didn't take stimulus money....they took stimulus money reluctantly)......

dbackjon wrote:This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO f**k[*] WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

I find it funny, jon, that you ridicule attempts to enforce the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in one post...yet in another demand that Article Four, Section One be enforced for an issue you support...

The Constitution is not an ala carte thing...it's all or nothing...

And since you agree with ignoring the 10th Amendment, you are making it easier to ignore other Articles and Amendments...in other words, you are defeating your own attempt to use the Constitution...

Think about it...you can't have it both ways...

I will believe they are serious when the vote to turn down the federal money coming from the recovery act.


Aint' gonna happen.

Col Hogan wrote:Think about it...you can't have it both ways...

He has tried it both ways and I think he has made up his mind. Yes HOMO

Appaholic wrote:Also, thanks for showing the rest of the states how to lead by principle......

SC Gov. To Reluctantly Take Stimulus Funds

South Carolina's Republican governor said his state will accept money from President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan even though he is ideologically opposed to it.

http://www.wtov9.com/nationalnews/18749118/detail.html

(they didn't take stimulus money....they took stimulus money reluctantly)......

Yeah you beat me to it. Empty friggin' resolutions. It wouldn't have mattered if Sanford would have said no (although I wish he had), because the legislature certainly wasn't going to turn money down. They have been wose than the republican congress in washington.

Hellllooooo.....?

deee....backkkkk?

Is anybody home?






Where'd he go?

travelinman67 wrote:Hellllooooo.....?

deee....backkkkk?

Is anybody home?






Where'd he go?

We desperately need more Dems around here. I fell like everyone is taking swings at Jon.

Someone go get Tod PP&J and the others

bobbythekidd wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Hellllooooo.....?

deee....backkkkk?

Is anybody home?






Where'd he go?

We desperately need more Dems around here. I fell like everyone is taking swings at Jon.

Someone go get Tod PP&J and the others

Not so much that in this thread...just to explain his opposition to the 10th Amendment...

...like the Col. said...it ain't a la carte. I personally don't see anything wrong with the Resolution. The Feds are continually overstepping their bounds and imposing mandates upon states that few states actually welcome...under the Pelosi/Reid regimes, it's REALLY worsened. I empathize with the SC state representatives.

What's puzzling me about Jon's response, is that it seems irrational. Merely because a state opposes imposition of the "progressive will" by the Feds, Jon responds viscerally attacking the state's reiteration of it's intent to abide by the 10th Amendment? That form of emotional reaction IMHO belies a faulty logic.

(As for other Dems...I, of course, heartily welcome them. Some, like Appaholic, understand the importance of maintaining consistence in their logic...regardless of whichever direction it may lead...others, allow their dogma to override common sense. Either are welcome, but the latter seem to waste everyone's time without adding to content. The same is obviously true for Conks also.)

travelinman67 wrote:Hellllooooo.....?

deee....backkkkk?

Is anybody home?






Where'd he go?

Damn Meetings. Will respond when caught up...

travelinman67 wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote: We desperately need more Dems around here. I fell like everyone is taking swings at Jon.

Someone go get Tod PP&J and the others

Not so much that in this thread...just to explain his opposition to the 10th Amendment...

...like the Col. said...it ain't a la carte. I personally don't see anything wrong with the Resolution. The Feds are continually overstepping their bounds and imposing mandates upon states that few states actually welcome...under the Pelosi/Reid regimes, it's REALLY worsened. I empathize with the SC state representatives.

What's puzzling me about Jon's response, is that it seems irrational. Merely because a state opposes imposition of the "progressive will" by the Feds, Jon responds viscerally attacking the state's reiteration of it's intent to abide by the 10th Amendment? That form of emotional reaction IMHO belies a faulty logic.

(As for other Dems...I, of course, heartily welcome them. Some, like Appaholic, understand the importance of maintaining consistence in their logic...regardless of whichever direction it may lead...others, allow their dogma to override common sense. Either are welcome, but the latter seem to waste everyone's time without adding to content. The same is obviously true for Conks also.)

Are you accusin' me of being a Dem, T-Man? There's low blows, but that's just uncalled for.....I'm no more a Dem than you are an envirowhacko......what, in God's name, makes you think I'm a dem.....

Appaholic wrote: Quack. Are you accusin' me of being a Dem, T-Man? Quack, Quack! There's low blows, but that's just uncalled for.....I'm no more a Dem, Quack, than you are an envirowhacko......what, in God's name, Quack, Quack, Quack, makes you think I'm a dem..... Quack!


...Quack...

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

travelinman67 wrote:

Appaholic wrote: Quack. Are you accusin' me of being a Dem, T-Man? Quack, Quack! There's low blows, but that's just uncalled for.....I'm no more a Dem, Quack, than you are an envirowhacko......what, in God's name, Quack, Quack, Quack, makes you think I'm a dem..... Quack!


...Quack...

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

T-Man, unlike yourself, I have maintained a consistent conservative approach to politics. If you could break off of the Republican teet long enough, you might recognize that.....

Appaholic wrote: ...Quack...

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... [/quote]

T-Man, unlike yourself, I have maintained a consistent conservative approach to politics. If you could break off of the Republican teet long enough, you might recognize that.....[/quote]

Bullshit. Legalizing soft narcotics is libertarian, not conservative. Advocating removal of existing natural resource management projects is as liberal as it gets.

I have never been a Republican. I have never donated any money to the Republican Party. So long as dumbass "I don't know what I don't know", nouveau riche white tribalists (read, Texas/O.C./Palm Beach) and old-money rationalizing bigots infect the upper committee positions, I WILL NEVER BE A REPUBLICAN. Conservatism is the "correct" path, but over the past 8 years, the Republican voice of conservatism has been drowned out by national wealth thieves and bigots that have been looting America's coffers and values.

And before the Donks go and puff out their chest...the Dems have done even worse, but have now beccome the sociopathic, socialist party of liars and hidden agendas.





Screw you...I have a license to generalize.

William F. Buckley Jr, a true conservative, was a strong supporter of legalizing pot...

Col Hogan wrote:William F. Buckley Jr, a true conservative, was a strong supporter of legalizing pot...

An old money Republican who hung out with too many elitist libs in the northeast. Truth is, most of the NE Dems I know DON'T support legalizing pot, almost a roll reversal.
Yet Soro's Open Anarchy Society funds most of the legalization campaigns around the U.S....

...ask yourself "Why?".

Oh, yeah...ALL HAIL SOUTH CAROLINA, DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION...

dbackjon wrote:This will work as well as it did in 1861.

Stupid fckuking idiots with nothing better to do.

Of course, the only reason they are doing it now is because Obama is in office. Where the fcuk was it when Bush was trampling on rights?

OH, I know, NO f**k[*] WHERE.


They should be ashamed that they are still in office.

Why do you hate the truth so much?