South Carolina House passes bill making ‘Obamacare’ implementation a crime

[Roger Bacon]

South Carolina House passes bill making ‘Obamacare’ implementation a crime
 By Jessica Chasmar

-

The Washington Times

Thursday, May 2, 2013

The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The measure permits the state Attorney General, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-making-obamacare-/#ixzz2hBmdcuVX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[polychronopolous]

Hell yeah, now we're talking!   

Maybe South Carolina might be a decent place to move to if Texas ever goes purple.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

South Carolina House passes bill making ‘Obamacare’ implementation a crime
 By Jessica Chasmar

-

The Washington Times

Thursday, May 2, 2013

The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The measure permits the state Attorney General, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-making-obamacare-/#ixzz2hBmdcuVX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Affordable Care Act is a federal law......

[avxo]

Meaningless gesture...

[AbrahamG]

Hell yeah, now we're talking!   

Maybe South Carolina might be a decent place to move to if Texas ever goes purple.

You mean WHEN Tex-Ass goes purple. 

[Purge_WTF]

Meaningless gesture...

It shouldn't be. States' rights should still mean something. No-one should be forced to buy into this, or anything else.

IMO, my generation won't make it to retirement before the treason hits the fan, so I'd like to have back the money they snatched from me and put into Social(ism) Security.

[JOHN MATRIX]

You mean WHEN Tex-Ass goes purple. 

Don't get your hopes up..

[Straw Man]

Meaningless gesture...

Isn't that a key plank in the Republican Platform?

[avxo]

It shouldn't be. States' rights should still mean something. No-one should be forced to buy into this, or anything else.

IMO, my generation won't make it to retirement before the treason hits the fan, so I'd like to have back the money they snatched from me and put into Social(ism) Security.

So you believe that States should be able to preempt Federal law locally? That's insanity... why even hade Federal law then?

[JOHN MATRIX]

The federal gov was designated only a few select tasks, among them national defense and international trade issues... Virtually everything else, especially social issues,  was to be left to the states to decide for themselves.

[Straw Man]

The federal gov was designated only a few select tasks, among them national defense and international trade issues... Virtually everything else, especially social issues,  was to be left to the states to decide for themselves.

like slavery?

[headhuntersix]

It wasn't the slavery...it was the seceding part that caused a war. Indiviually if each state said screw u I'm keeping slaves, would Lincoln have sent in troops. I don't know. He would not have been able to rely on the States to inforce the law so I guess he would have. Then the Feds would be going to individual citizens and enforcing the law. If South Carolina feels that this law will hurt the state, its people and its economy they have a duty to do something otherwise the idea of state government is worthless.

[JOHN MATRIX]

like slavery?

Yes. Social issues were not the business of the federal government

[Dos Equis]

U.S. Constitutional amendments have to be ratified by the states, so arguably the states do dictate what happens at the federal level, at least as it relates to the Constitution. 

[avxo]

The federal gov was designated only a few select tasks, among them national defense and international trade issues... Virtually everything else, especially social issues,  was to be left to the states to decide for themselves.

No argument there (modulo the interstate commerce clause which is, I'll grant you, heavily abused). However, whether we like it or not, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

Despite all that, a State cannot just pass a law to prevent a Federal law from taking effect. Such a law would be unconstitutional and invalid on its face.

[Straw Man]

Yes. Social issues were not the business of the federal government

you might want to do a bit of research on that one

start with equal rights, abortion, fair housing laws,  etc..

[Coach is Back!]

Affordable Care Act is a federal law......

Hahahahahahahaha


P.S. 37%

[AbrahamG]

Don't get your hopes up..

It's coming!  You mad brah?

[avxo]

Hahahahahahahaha


P.S. 37%

Listen dumbass, I get that you didn't pay attention during civics class before you dropped out of high school, but the ACA was passed by the House and the Senate and was signed into law.

How many people support it is irrelevant. We don't live in a direct democracy and laws don't magically become valid or invalid based on opinion polls.

The Affordable Care Act is law. I don't like it, but reality is what it is. I act accordingly. You choose to babble on and on with nonsense like "37%" and to filter reality and see what you want to see instead of what's actually there.

[AbrahamG]

37% is a misleading number.  That means 37% like it the way it is.  If you were to ask how many people either like it or think it's an improvement and/or heading in the right direction then that number is over 50%.  Liberals like me want single payer but still see how and why the ACA is better than the status quo.

[polychronopolous]

Hahahahahahahaha


P.S. 37%

What a fucking disaster.

[Dos Equis]

Listen dumbass, I get that you didn't pay attention during civics class before you dropped out of high school, but the ACA was passed by the House and the Senate and was signed into law.

How many people support it is irrelevant. We don't live in a direct democracy and laws don't magically become valid or invalid based on opinion polls.

The Affordable Care Act is law. I don't like it, but reality is what it is. I act accordingly. You choose to babble on and on with nonsense like "37%" and to filter reality and see what you want to see instead of what's actually there.

Nah.  Public opinion does matter.  If the majority of the country is opposed to a law like this, that was passed in the manner in which it was (party-line vote), Congress should work to repeal it.  If they cannot repeal it, but can refuse to fund it, they should do so, if that's what the country wants.  

I'm not suggesting polls should dictate public policy, but they shouldn't be completely ignored either.  

[Archer77]

you might want to do a bit of research on that one

start with equal rights, abortion, fair housing laws,  etc..

If we as a society expect the state to provide these to every citizen as a right; what should the state expect from the individual in return?

Let me rephrase the question.  If we expect our society to provide all the things you mentioned to every citizen as a basic right; what should society expect from each individual? 

[tonymctones]

If we as a society expect the state to provide these to every citizen as a right; what should the state expect from the individual in return?

money and mindless devotion...such as liberals to obama...

[Kazan]

AMENDMENT X

The 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.