SC Sovereignty Resolution


Red Hat

New member
This is great. It's in Committee now. Read all of it here. 2009-2010 Bill 3509: Rights - South Carolina Legislature Online


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

That the General Assembly of South Carolina, based on the above principles and provisions, hereby declares by this resolution, that any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order by the federal courts which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens shall abridge the Constitution. The General Assembly further declares that acts which would cause such an abridgment include, but are not limited to:

(1) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that state;

(2) requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law;

(3) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of eighteen other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law;

(4) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;

(5) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; and

(6) further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.
 

DocBoCook

Not Negotiable, A Right
well done. Now every state should do something along this line. but then again, we shouldn't have had to do it in the first place
 

fibertech

New member
I say that SC has just drawn a line in the sand for what is coming. we need to be prepaired as well.
 

340mopar

.45 Randall 1911/Glock 21
This would be a perfect item for The States to stand up and do it on their own, without Fed involvment.
 

CUProf

New member
I like this. Really really like it. However, what recourse will the state take if the Fed's violate one of the resolutions? What recourse could they take?
 

Germanicus

New member
As an individual brought up to respect State's Rights and to love and defend one's country (meaning State, not a Federal Union) I think it's great. I think it brings our SC government closer to what it once was in the antebellum period. However, as a realist I am forced to agree with CUProf, what recourse can we take? Or perhaps the question should be, what recourse will the Fed take?
 

R&M

New member
I have thanked Mike Pitts for sponsoring the bill and emailed Floyd Nickelson my Senator for support. Doubt it will change his mind but have let him know anyway.
 

Red Hat

New member
Bill adopted in the House and the Senate passed their version in subcommittee.

S C Lobby Man: SOVEREIGNTY BILL H.3509 PASSES SOUTH CAROLIAN HOUSE


SC Senate subcommittee passes State Sovereignty Resolution. South Carolina CofCC


A SC Senate subcommittee voted 4-1 today to send S. 424 to the full Judiciary committee. Glen McConnell, who is the chairman of the Judiciary committee expects it to pass.

Last week the SC House passed H. 3509. Col. Slimp, who spoke at a hearing on the senate resolution today said he expects the resolution to be passed by the full Senate within ten days.

The next step would be a joint session to decide which version to send to the Governor.

I like the House version better!

Senate version: 2009-2010 Bill 424: United States Constitution - South Carolina Legislature Online
 

FN1910

New member
Ironic that while they are passing this resolution they are raking Gov Sanford over the coals for doing exactly the thing that is in the resolution. I suppose that is having your cake and eating it too.
 

CapGun

New member
SC is one of the states I would consider moving to when the wife retires. Just moved it up on the list!
FN 1910>> I do believe in "states rights" and you point out the conflict. Just have to say I'll take both options. I want my cake and eat it too!
ok ok difficult paradox I understand but what the hey!
Hope you don't mind of another transplant from up north if that's where we decide to go!
 
Last edited:

FN1910

New member
SC is one of the states I would consider moving to when the wife retires. Just moved it up on the list!
FN 1910>> I do believe in "states rights" and you point out the conflict. Just have to say I'll take both options. I want my cake and eat it too!
ok ok difficult paradox I understand but what the hey!
Hope you don't mind of another transplant from up north if that's where we decide to go!

Come on down. Actually I put the 10th amendment even with the second in importance to me. Obama and company have dangled a carrot in front of the states that is hard to resist especially alone and in such times as are these. As they say about the highways it is easy to be right, dead right. In order to stand our ground we must consider what the results will be. It is very easy to stand up for our rights and beliefs when the results don't affect us. It is easy to sacrifice ourselves for something but are we willing to sacrifice our children. It hits me that we are sacrificing our grandchildren for the sake of our children with this bail-out package. A very hard decision.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,340
Messages
622,573
Members
74,167
Latest member
blammoammo.com
Top