The House debate mirrored the Senate debate over the state sovereignty bill. Republicans seemed perturbed, and Democrats were outright pissed and armed with amendments. It went on for days, but eventually the House passed it Tuesday afternoon. There were impassioned speeches, parliamentary maneuvers, but the resolution was a fait accompli from the very beginning.
Needless to say, the GOP was in a good mood afterward.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
Today, we sent a message to Congress – South Carolina believes that the federal government is engaging in an unprecedented takeover of power from the states. While there is no law we can pass to stop them, it is important to make our position and the position of our constituents known to the federal government.
The opposition to this simple statement of principle was astounding. Over four days of debate, Democrats threw up multiple roadblocks and spent endless hours talking against the resolution in an effort to kill the measure – Republicans spent less than 16 minutes speaking in favor of the resolution. Most members wanted to vote and move on, because issues like job creation, ESC reform and education were sidelined while the Democrats debated themselves for four days.
Our freedom is what makes our country great. Our founding fathers made it clear that the protection of those rights and freedoms set forward in the Constitution were paramount to the survival of our nation. This core belief is what moved the South Carolina Legislature to take up this measure reaffirming those rights.
House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham
This bill is a key part of our “Unfinished Business” agenda of items we approved last session. We are glad the Senate sent this resolution back to us 11 months after House conservatives recognized the threat and registered our protest.
I’m sure this was an oversight by the Senate leadership, but it is an oversight that had to be corrected. Each of the 10 amendments included in the Bill of Rights protect vital freedoms that we take for granted way too often.
By the way, if the House Democrats want to send over quotes that don’t mean we have to take time out of our day to transcribe more than two hours of protest on the House floor, it’s not hard to find the email.
For the second consecutive day, action in the Senate ground to a halt while Democrats filibustered an amendment to S. 424, the 10th Amendment bill. The resolution was to originally constructed to express the General Assembly’s discontent with general actions taken by Congress as of late. The amendment would strike and replace language to show the General Assembly’s rejection of the Democratic health care bill, however it makes it out of the negotiations between Congressional Democrats. It also discusses bailouts and the like.
Whereas, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights established a federal government limited in scope and guarantee of personal liberty so that our citizens will be free to pursue their inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as recognized in the Declaration of Independence; and
Whereas, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and
Whereas, pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, the people are guaranteed the right to privacy as a basic human right; and
Whereas, the delivery, administration and receipt of medical care affects personal privacy and involves the most intimate and personal of choices; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “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”; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the limited scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution; and
Whereas, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, by limiting the scope of federal power to only those specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution, the states retain plenary power to govern; and
Whereas, despite the clear limitations placed upon it by the United States Constitution, the federal government has steadily expanded its reach into the lives of our citizens and, in so doing, violates the very principles upon which this nation was founded; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has said that states have great latitude in regulating medical care and standards, which have historically and constitutionally been primary state responsibilities and affect areas of core state responsibility, yet Congress and the President are reaching agreement over legislation that will result in the federal government absorbing the regulation of medical care, stripping the states of most responsibility, and taking away the free choice of the citizens of the states; and
Whereas, the federal government has spent trillions of dollars of borrowed money to run deficits, to bail out financial institutions, to prop-up auto makers, and to keep afloat other private enterprises that were mismanaged, took unnecessary risks, or were unresponsive to market demands, thus amassing a debt that will loom over and burden our country for generations to come; and
Whereas, the federal government habitually responds to its annual budget shortfalls by burdening the states with unfunded mandates, shifting costs for programs to the states, limiting state flexibility, and interfering with state revenue systems, undermining the constitutionally created balance between federal and state government; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states, and that states may provide their citizens with protections that exceed the protections by the federal government; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Constitution allows states to grant rights to their citizens in their state constitutions, beyond rights granted in the federal Constitution; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that federal law restricting certain rights may be ineffective in denying those rights protected in state Constitutions; and
Whereas, the federal government is considering legislation that may, among other things, obligate residents in South Carolina and other states to purchase health insurance; and
Whereas, the federal government is considering legislation that may, among other things, mandate that this State and other states increase its spending for Medicaid; and
Whereas, it is vitally important for the future of our nation that the states stand against the relentless expansion of the federal government and restore the proper balance to our federal system. 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 it is the policy of the State of South Carolina that:
No law shall interfere with the right of a person to be treated by or receive services from a health care provider of that person’s choice;
No law shall restrict a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private health care plans of any type;
No law shall interfere with a person’s or an entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services; and
No law shall impose a tax, penalty, or fine, of any type, for choosing a health care provider, to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.
Be it further resolved that it is the policy of the State of South Carolina that the Attorney General will challenge the constitutionality of any provision enacted by the United States Congress that would violate any of the policies established by this resolution and join with other states that are like-minded to make such a challenge.
Be it further resolved that no state agency, agent, department, instrumentality, or subdivision shall cooperate or participate in any way with any mandate passed by Congress upon notification by the Attorney General that the mandate has been successfully challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction, and further provided that there is not an order to the contrary by a court of competent jurisdiction.
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.
The talking, it went on for a long time.
For a while, it appeared that Sen. Mick Mulvaney, a cosponsor of the legislation, was filibustering his own bill by going on at length to convince his fellow legislators to pass it. Following an impromptu Senate Republican Caucus meeting, there was a bit of theater as Sens. Mulvaney, Glenn McConnell and John Courson discussed Barry Goldwater. Then, the inevitable — the talking started from the Democratic side.
Sen. Phil Leventis ceded to Sen. Brad Hutto, who stepped to the podium and didn’t stop, getting into an entertaining “flim-flam” call-and-response, saying that the bill as would be amended would have no power and if it did have power, would be a disaster to the state in the event of the state losing Federal health care funding. Sen. Robert Ford suggested a strike-and-replace amendment with the Ordinance of Secession. Sen. Dick Elliott asked about getting cots so that the senators could make it through the night.
However, it didn’t go all night, though the Wednesday session went a lot longer than it would have otherwise. Several senators, appearing to have had enough of the affair, asked for a leave of absence and took off. One thing is for certain, though — hackles are raised among the faithful. As good a Democrats v. Republicans fight is rare in South Carolina, when it happens, it’s solid.
Republicans, in general, are fed up. In a statement released about the debate, Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler said:
Like our founding fathers, we too will stand strong against an overreaching government because we do have a choice and with this resolution, we ask the Attorney General of South Carolina to fight any attempt to force a socialized health care plan on our state and its taxpayers. We will stand today, not just against the Democrats, but against a government that intrudes on our rights and our freedoms. We demand action today because by remaining silent, we signal our surrender.
The Democrats say our resolution is pointless. They say it has no effect of law. We don’t need a new law to stand up for our rights and to send a signal to Washington that we will not, under any circumstances, accept a takeover of our nation’s health care system. And we will take all legal actions necessary to ensure that our rights are protected.
S.C. Republican Party chairwoman Karen Floyd also voiced opposition to what Senate Democrats have been up to.
Rather than acting to protect South Carolina patients and taxpayers, state Democrats are already up to their old obstructionist tricks, and trying their best to import the Washington liberals’ fiscal irresponsibility here to our state. We’re proud of our Republican Senators who are standing strong in this fight to protect our rights to set policies and choose our own healthcare. The Democrats need to end their filibuster and act in the best interest of South Carolinians.
Democrats fired back, saying:
It’s ridiculous that our state’s Republican leaders are wasting time and money with this kind of grandstanding so early in the new legislative session. South Carolina citizens are counting on our leaders to pass legislation that will give their families access to quality, affordable healthcare, not strip them of their rights to Medicare and other services. Senators have a moral obligation not to waste time and taxpayer money on bills like this.
Something’s going to have to give in this tug-of-war. A cloture motion failed by two votes Wednesday, so the Senate will be taking up the measure again on Thursday. It stands to reason that Republicans are going to find those two votes and shut down the filibuster pretty soon.
What really happened during the last week of session in the Senate? Whatever happened, a lot of people are angry.
The pro-lifers are angry that the 24-hour abortion wait bill was canned. The realtors are mad that their point-of-sale bill failed. The entire business community, including NFIB, the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, and the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance are pissed that the card check bill got checked. Republican party activists, including S.C. Republican Party staff, have their panties in a wad that the voter ID bill didn’t make it out.
So, who is to blame? According to a call with S.C. Senate Republican Caucus director Wesley Donehue, he was quick to put it all on one man -– Sen. Lee Bright.
“I’m not going to say that Sen. Bright killed all these bills, but I will say that the Democrats used his bill to kill everything else,” Donehue said. “This week I was flooded by calls and bombarded in the lobby and I told everyone the same exact thing. We can’t move anything until we get 10th Amendment out of the way because [Sen. Brad] Hutto is filibustering it. We don’t have the 37 votes to sit Hutto down, so the only option we have is to pull the bill down. Numerous senators tried to get Sen. Bright to budge, but he wouldn’t move.
“Brad Hutto and the Democrats were using the 10th Amendment resolution to block everything else. They told me to my face that putting the resolution on special order was the stupidest thing we did all year. They were right. I don’t care how anyone tries to spin it. The truth is that the abortion bill, card check, voter ID, and point of sale all died because of Sen. Bright’s bill.”
One party activist told WR, “Sure, it’s a great conservative gesture, but in the grand scheme of things its nothing more than a useless letter to Obama. Most folks would have rather fought unions and protected the unborn.”
When asked how a freshman senator can cause such chaos, Donehue said that anyone who makes that statement knows little about the legislative process.
“Any one senator can kill nearly anything. For example, at one point last week, Sen. Bright objected to every single bill on the calendar, effectively killing them all,” he said.
We’ve heard from numerous sources that the Senate went into its hour-long closed executive session (when senators kick everyone out, including press and staff) to scold Bright. Donehue would not comment, claiming, “Senators don’t tell us what happens in executive session.”
However, one senator did speak to WR on background, claming that the entire hour was spent putting Bright into place.
Maybe that’s why Bright, who took the podium nearly every day this session and even called for roll call votes on adjournment, became so quiet in the last four hours of session.
For observers of the General Assembly, especially those without a long history analyzing the matters of our state legislature, some events that go on in the House and Senate chambers are especially telling.
That is, when the leadership is clearly doing its best to tolerate the missteps of an elected official that is clearly not thinking things through. Such is the matter with Sen. Lee Bright of Spartanburg.
Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, showing his frustration with the antics of the freshman legislator hindering the chamber’s business, said in The Herald-Journal, “If you want to point at one legislative issue that gummed up the works, that was it,” Peeler said of Bright’s resolution on the 10th Amendment. “It’s discouraging that Sen. Bright insisted on that. We attempted some amendments that would have made it more palatable to the body, but it was all or nothing with him.”
The bill would have reasserted South Carolina’s rights under the amendment, a process that seems time-wasting on the face of it, never mind Bright’s intransigence at seeing the bill altered.
While some people are attempting to defend one of the worst legislators of the term, it’s important to know that this isn’t the first time Bright has wasted an elected body’s time on a measure that holds no real consequence.
When he was on the Spartanburg District 6 school board, Bright, on Nov. 6, 2000, offered up a resolution opposing the lottery. According to the minutes of the meeting, “Discussion related primarily to the difficulty of making such a resolution meaningful the day before the election.” Mind you, the lottery had been a big deal for a couple years, but Bright had the brilliant idea to put forth this piece of work the day before the election. Naturally, it failed 5-3.
Then there is the funny thing that happened during the debate of getting international firm KPMG to oversee the construction of the new Dorman High School complex. While board members Michael Crook and Lynn Foster explained that KPMG would bring a level of expertise not easily found locally, Bright and board member Michael Thompson kept harping on about liability. Then, the KPMG representative had to explain to Bright and Thompson, multiple times, the difference between project management and contract management.
And, let’s not forget the campaign. He said to an audience that the whole reason he sent his kids to public schools was because of a bet he made with his wife over his election to the school board. If you remember, REAL ID was a major issue last Spring, as well. It was all over the newspapers, TV news, the blogs, the whole nine. Well, when questioned about the issue during a debate, the Roebuck Republican couldn’t answer and acted like he didn’t know anything about it.
Fortunately, as of late, it looks like Bright has cleaned up his disclosure reports. But, it was not always so easy before, with inaccuracies going from his 2004 race against former Sen. John Hawkins to early 2008. In ’04, there is a deficit of $386.88 that is unaccounted for, in two reports in ’05 there is a surplus of $749.67 that is not explained and in another two reports a deficit of $77.15 that is unaccounted for.
For his first report of the 2008 race, there is a magical $214.01 opening balance. For those who are not acquainted, a bank account does not usually come with a couple hundred in it. Usually, you have to open the account, then deposit money into it, hence Bright should have had a starting balance of zero. If this guy cannot keep his campaign accounts straight, it would seem like legislative malpractice to put him near a budget.
This is all without getting into his trucking company, which has had tax problems and a goodly number of lawsuits over the years. Not to mention, the fact that Bright said in 2007 that he started his own business 23 years ago, during the campaign he said it was 11 years ago. All the while, making it look like he was starting On Time Transportation/On Time Trucking on his own, while in reality he was one of three, and is a one-third stakeholder in both companies.
So, it comes of little surprise that Peeler isn’t happy with Bright’s states’ rights crusade this session and what it did to the normal flow of legislation. The bad news is we have three more years of Bright until the people of Senate District 12 get another chance to put a competent legislator in the seat.
