Wednesday, the House Judiciary Constitutional Laws subcommittee unanimously passed H. 3489, a bill sponsored by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell and 45 co-sponsors. Reps. Greg Delleney, Jim Harrison, Walt McLeod and Garry Smith voted for the measure, with Rep. James Smith away on other business. The bill now goes to the full Judiciary Committee. Right now, it looks like it’s ready to go all the way.
One of the most significant changes to the law would be a limit on punitive damages — the larger amount of $350,000 or three times the compensatory damages award. Another is allowing into evidence if someone in an accident did not use a seat belt.
While we’re fairly certain the bill will make it out of committee, action when it comes up for second reading could be pretty interesting. From what we’ve been seeing, the S.C. Association for Justice is getting aggressive in its courting of legislators who may be on the fence or nominally for tort reform (mostly Republicans) to come over to its way of thinking, joining a sizable number of number of Democrats.
All signs point to this heating up behind the scenes, which can only mean that it’ll be hot when it hits the floor.
A bill that would effectively outlaw abortion in South Carolina was shot down on Thursday in subcommittee after no vote was taken. Testimony, pro and con, went on for an hour and did the job of keeping the bill bottled up. H. 3526, by Rep. Liston Barfield and a number of co-sponsors, mandates that the state would consider a fertilized egg as a human life. This sort of definition would also end up banning some forms of birth control.
A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 SO AS TO ENACT THE “RIGHT TO LIFE ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA” WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING VESTS AT FERTILIZATION, AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, VEST AT FERTILIZATION FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN PERSON.
Whereas, the General Assembly, under Article III, Section 1A of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, is empowered to assemble to make new laws, as the common good may require; and
Whereas, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, 1895, guarantees that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied the equal protection of the laws; and
Whereas, the General Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional powers and in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the law finds it necessary and proper to ensure that the rights of its citizens extend to each newly born and preborn human person. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“Article 5
Right to Life
Section 1-1-310. This article may be cited as the ‘Right to Life Act of South Carolina’.
Section 1-1-320. (A) The right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.
(B) The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of this State, that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human person.”
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
If you thought the hubbub over voter ID and the state sovereignty bills was something, this piece going to the House floor would induce epic fights. Indeed, even in the subcommittee meeting, Chairman Jim Harrison Greg Delleney and a person arguing in favor of the bill got into it.
Last spring, we were told that real estate magnate Howard Rich had pulled his money out of South Carolina, considering that his lackeys in this state hadn’t been able to accomplish diddly-squat, except to bitch and moan and act like because they yell loudest, that they’re the “majority.” Maybe some consultants have lost out, but money’s still going to candidates and elected officials.
JOEY MILLWOOD
State representative
(2009, Fourth quarter)
538-14 Realty, $1,000
Silver and Silver Properties, $1,000
332 E 11, $1,000
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
GREG DELLENEY
State representative
(2009, Fourth quarter)
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
188 Claremont, $1,000
538-14 Realty, $1,000
332 E 11, $1,000
TRACY EDGE
State representative
(2009, Fourth quarter)
332 East 11, $1,000
538-14 Realty, $1,000
4220 Broadway, $1,000
Silver and Silver Properties, $1,000
188 Claremont, $1,000
TOM DAVIS
State senator
(2009, Third Quarter)
188 Claremont, $1,000
4220 Broadway, $1,000
51 First Avenue, $1,000
123 LaSalle, $1,000
405 49 Associates, $1,000
332 E 11, $1,000
470 W 166, $1,000
Bradford Management of New York, $1,000
Dayrich, $1,000
Bayrich, $1,000
The House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday to address the impeachment or censure of Gov. Mark Sanford was classic House. There were impassioned speeches, some ill-chosen remarks and after all that noise, little actually was accomplished.
It started out with debate over the impeachment resolution, which was passed unfavorably out of subcommittee last week. It didn’t go so well in full committee, falling to an 18-6 vote. Reps. Greg Delleney, Keith Kelly, Vida Miller, Todd Rutherford, Bakari Sellers and Seth Whipper went for it. Rutherford got rather animated in his evaluation of the subcommittee’s work, saying at one point, “We really are the idiots people make us out to be.” He also chimed in with, “We care more about striped bass than we do about this.” Some of his comments rankled Rep. Jim Harrison, who asked, and received, an apology.
The committee moved on to the censure resolution, which passed unanimously. Censure comes down in the gray middle between a genuine punishment and having to have something on the books that shows members of the General Assembly do not approve of what Sanford has been up to. Rep. James Smith said in an AP story, “A vote for censure is not an endorsement for the governor’s conduct. It’s quite the contrary.”
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, reflecting on the censure bill moving to the full House, said in a statement, “The Committee’s ruling to honor the recommendation from the subcommittee was the right decision. Our state’s Constitution sets a very high standard for removal from office. While this process revealed the Governor’s actions to be irresponsible, misguided and hypocritical, the evidence available did not reach the Constitutional level to remove the Governor from office.
“The censure resolution — a legislative decree condemning the Governor’s actions — will now move to the House floor. I expect the full House to quickly address this censure and move on to more pressing issues facing our state.
“While the Governor’s irresponsible actions did not meet the Constitutional definition for removal, they clearly warrant an official censure by the House of Representatives. In fact, the embarrassment and continued distraction caused by these actions should have warranted the Governor’s resignation from office — an action that I and an overwhelming majority of lawmakers urged the Governor to take in the best interest of our state months ago.”
Sanford isn’t totally off the hook. His suspected ethics violations are still subject to investigation and sanctions from the State Ethics Commission. However, getting a few fines levied on him isn’t likely to provide too much pain to the Governor, who has already seen his biggest punishment — the death of his political career — happen months ago.
The House ad-hoc subcommittee on impeachment did what was expected — voted down the resolution for the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford. There was a thought that it would get some Democratic support, or another Republican beside chief sponsor Rep. Greg Delleney, but the vote went 6-1 against. It seems to us that Democrats would like Sanford to kick around in the General Assembly and in next year’s elections, and that the other Republicans weren’t pissed off enough to throw the bastard out.
The panel did add more charges, and accepted stipulations from the Governor’s counsel that basically admitted everything that went down in June. But, perhaps lost in the mix is that all charges offered by the State Ethics Commission are still valid, and can be acted upon, even though the subcommittee gave an unfavorable report on the impeachment resolution.
The last session of the subcommittee went fairly quickly into the declarative speeches. Delleney started off with a little more information, discussing news stories from the summer, and the explanations for how they were voting was led off by Rep. Jim Harrison, who presided as chair. What follows are the relevant excerpts.
Rep. Jim Harrison
One thing is for certain: impeachment is not akin to recall. We cannot impeach for hypocrisy. We can’t impeach for arrogance. We can’t impeach an office holder for his lack of leadership skills. We cannot impeach a public official because the public has lost confidence in his ability to lead. The question for us is simple: has the Governor’s conduct, as we’ve heard, breached the constitutional standard?
Rep. Greg Delleney
There’s virtually no precedent for impeachment of a governor in South Carolina. Because, we do have a unique, one-of-a-kind standard that has never been used. The Governor’s lawyers in their memorandum point out correctly that no South Carolina governor has ever been impeached. They point out that only 16 governors have been impeached since the founding of this nation. But of those 16 governors who were impeached, only eight were removed. But, what they don’t tell us is how many governors, when faced with scandal, have the decency to resign. Like most recently, with Gov. Spitzer in New York. What they don’t tell us is how many governors have been recalled prior to the expiration of their term, like most recently, Gray Davis in California.
[...]
What did he do? in June of ‘09 he came back, he confessed, and he wrote a check. It was an admission to a personal trip at state expense. And [Sanford's attorneys] want to say it was a mere coincidence. That’s insulting to intelligence, just as “hiking on the Appalachian Trail” was insulting intelligence of the people of South Carolina.
That standard of serious crimes, or serious misconduct, of course it is a high standard on purpose. The whole area of serious misconduct is, on its face, a very purposeful ambiguous term. And, I think it’s a term that gives this committee, or certainly gives the General Assembly, the leeway to set whatever that standard may be. To apply that standard on a case-by-case basis.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a grave proceeding in which we are involved. This subcommittee is meeting to consider House bill 4168, introduced by Rep. Delleney, Rep. Mike Pitts, Rep. [Keith] Kelly and Rep. [Gary] Simrill. It reads, “To provide that pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the governor of South Carolina, the Hon. Marshall C. Sanford Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.” The constitutional provision provides the House of Representatives, alone, will have the power of impeachment, of serious crimes, or serious misconduct in office. Officials elected on a statewide basis, state judges, and other statewide offices as may be designated by law. The first parameter is serious crimes — that is not germane or relevant to the mission of this impeachment panel, because there has been no showing of serious crimes. The issue before us is one of serious misconduct, which is at the heart of the deliberations we are involved in. If serious misconduct is involved, and it rises to the level of impeachment, that is a very, very grave matter. If simple misconduct is involved, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would also like to add, in general, that the process for impeachment proceedings is almost, I should say is, is almost as important as the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. I would like to compliment, and thank, Chairman Harrison for the manner in which he has presided, and the manner in which he has guided the deliberations of this special impeachment committee. In my opinion, you have performed in an outstanding manner, and I for one, on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina, want to thank you for your style and achievements. We also heard earlier about Article IV, Section 11, which more or less says, “The lieutenant should have full authority to act in an emergency, in the case of disability of the governor, and in the event of the temporary absence of the governor from the state.” Now, sometimes we say things, which had a little likeness to a very, very grave situation. And, I’d like to simply say, that our governor is blessed with poor judgment. I regret to inform you of that, but we all know it. So, we consider, what is serious misconduct, what is a simple misconduct. We’ve discussed at length five aircraft trips on the state aircraft, five strictly personal, or strictly political, uses of the state aircraft. There is no doubt about the exercise of poor judgment which was involved in those five flights. I wish he hadn’t done it. I would only say that the guilt associated with them clearly does not rise to an impeachable level, and therefore do not constitute a serious misconduct. I should say those five are not serious misconduct. In the year 2008, we had the use of taxpayers’ funds to pay for airline tickets and accommodations for Gov. Sanford and a Department of Commerce staffer, from Cordoba, Argentina, to Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Governor conducted a series of official meetings with high-level people — the ambassador, the governor, the mayor of Buenos Aires, and that is also true that he wrote six thank-you notes to cover himself. But, the validity of the trip leaves much to be desired. And, it appears to be a personal agenda, of which were fully covered by appearances and thank-you notes. For the most part, the 2008 trip to Buenos Aires was a ruse for the conduct of personal activities that bore no relation to his official duties as governor. We now come to the issue of the adventure to Argentina in June of 2009. The issue here is there were three days when he was incommunicado. He was not in touch with representatives of the Governor’s Office for three days, namely Friday, June 19, Saturday, June 20 and Sunday, June 21. It’s also true that the Governor contacted his office on Monday, June 22. But, what happened in that weekend? Well, I can tell you. It was a very bland weekend. All eyes in our state, on our governor and where he was. He was kind of like a bride at a wedding. Or a corpse, at a funeral. All eyes on the Governor, and who could tell us where he was? And nobody was talking. He was the center of attention, and once again, I say that poor judgment was exercised in a rank and obvious fashion. So, my conclusion is, that while I am discontent about the conduct and behavior of our governor, in my mind it clearly does not constitute serious misconduct. Therefore, the issues I have discussed do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would share the view of Mr. Weeks, it is a necessity that we keep the bar high for impeaching elected officials in our state because we have a duty to respect the wishes of those persons who are elected by the citizens of our state. I remember Gov. [John] West well, I remember a little bit about the West Committee. But, I would certainly like to thank former Gov. West — at that time, when he was chairman of that committee, he was lieutenant governor — and the members of the West Committee for setting forth a standard for this committee to consider, which would not allow us to conduct ourselves in an inappropriate manner. Because, as I said at the outset, the process for an impeachment proceeding is equally as important the outcome of the impeachment proceeding. When this House resolution, 4168, is ready for a vote, I intend to vote against it.
Basic civics teaches us that our checks-and-balances system hinges upon co-equal branches of government. And, the very process of impeachment that we are about today, is the infringement of the legislative branch sitting in judgment of the executive branch. I think the Founding Fathers also got it right, as well as the West Commission, when they put together a standard that is high for the impeachment of a duly-elected official. That standard being, serious crimes, serious misconduct.
While it could be made fun of, much like the Tebow tears, Horne’s obvious care for the governance of our state should be lauded. Many people, of which we include ourselves, are deeply cynical of politics and government. We give Rep. Horne some well-deserved propers.
I have spent hours reading thousands of pages of documents, listening to the arguments of counsel, reviewing witness affidavits, and analyzing the South Carolina Constitution and the laws of this state. I wanted the other members of this impeachment subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to have been appointed to undertake this historic and monumental task. Considering the impeachment of South Carolina’s 115th governor, Marshall C. Sanford Jr., I take this task very seriously and I have given this situation the utmost thoughtful and prayerful consideration.
[...]
The Governor’s conduct was not that of a true statesman, or even a gentleman for that matter. My job on this committee is not to sit here in moral judgment of the Governor, which rests solely with his Creator. His fall from grace is indeed tragic, and as a wife and a mother, I feel great sympathy for Mrs. Sanford and their four children.
It became abundantly clear during the evidentiary — when we were receiving the information with respect to that [2008 Argentina] trip, that it was nothing but a ruse. It was nothing but a way to use his power with the Office of Governor to get to this area of the country, for a personal purpose. Any effort to engage in efforts on behalf of the state was clearly one to hide that fact. That, in and of itself, is a clear abuse of power.
There you have it. Most members of the committee thought Sanford acted like a college sophomore on Spring Break, but didn’t think it rose to an impeachable standard. Here’s a surprise, Harrison’s prefiled bill to censure Sanford subsequently passed unanimously. Maybe it’s just our cynicism again, but it looks like that old General Assembly shell game was in effect — the decision was made way before the legislators appeared in public. Sanford should get a worse punishment than a disapproving slap with no real repercussions, but that’s where we’re at right now. Hopefully, he’ll just lose his family, be disgraced and never show his head in politics again.
After the vote, there was the postgame commentary.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
First of all, I would like to thank each member of the subcommittee for taking time away from their family and job during this busy holiday season to meet and investigate this matter. With the regular legislative session beginning next month, it is important that we fully investigate and properly address this issue in a timely manner so that we can begin the session working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most.
The subcommittee has held four hearings, reviewed all the information from the State Ethics Commission’s investigative report, taken testimony, made follow-up inquiries and debated the issues. They have conducted a thorough investigation into any possible serious crimes or serious misconduct committed by our state’s highest elected official.
I agree with the majority opinion reached by the subcommittee. The threshold for removal from office is a very high standard, and from the evidence made available to them, it does not appear that the Governor’s actions have met that threshold for removal from office. While his actions were clearly revealed to be irresponsible, misguided and hypocritical, the subcommittee found that they did not reach the constitutional definition of serious crimes or serious misconduct necessary to remove the Governor from office.
I also agree with the subcommittee’s decision to favorably pass a censure resolution today. The Governor’s actions brought great shame upon himself, his office, our state government and our citizens. This entire situation – the multiple investigations, court cases and media barrage – could have been easily avoided if the Governor had acted in the best interest of our state and resigned from office, as I and a majority of lawmakers urged him to do months ago. Instead, the Governor insisted on remaining in office despite the embarrassment and distraction he has brought to our state. A legislative decree condemning the Governor’s irresponsible actions is absolutely warranted.
Whether the Governor’s actions require punishment by the State Ethics Commission or criminal prosecution in a court of law is not a determination that can be made by this legislative body. The South Carolina Constitution only gives the Legislature prosecutorial authority over matters related to the removal from office, and that is where the scope of this investigation begins and ends for the House.
The proper procedure needs to be followed for this investigation to be completed and some level of closure brought to this matter. For that to happen, the full Judiciary Committee needs to meet, consider all the facts, debate the issues and rule on the subcommittee’s recommendation. After this process is complete, the General Assembly can turn its full attention to addressing the major issues of the approaching legislative session.
S.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler
Gov. Sanford certainly deserved the stinging rebuke he got from the House subcommittee. But far more important than his trip to Argentina is that neither he nor the Republicans in the House and Senate seem able to do anything to move this state forward. South Carolinians have long since given up on Sanford’s failed governorship; the best we can hope for is that he won’t cause our state any more embarrassment in the remaining months of his term.
Sanford
In light of the ad-hoc committee wrapping up its work today, I would like to make several points. One, I’d like to thank the committee for its work, and for their deliberate and measured approach throughout the process.
Two, we agree with the committee’s dismissal of 32 of the 37 ethics allegations. From the beginning I acknowledged my moral failing, and I apologized repeatedly. But in the same breath I said, as real as that was, what has been suggested with regard to supposedly not watching out for the taxpayer was just not correct; and that if there had been any oversight, it was minor and technical in nature. We are confident that the remaining five allegations will be dismissed just as the 32 were, because we have consistently tried to be true to the taxpayer. This has not changed, and it will not change.
Three, I want to thank the people of this state for their kindness and grace. I was encouraged repeatedly in traveling across the state over the last several months by countless people telling me to “hang in there,” and “finish strong.” The people of South Carolina have given me great strength in this adversity I’ve created for myself, and I want to again thank them for it. [ed. note: Because cheating on your wife should mean you deserve sympathy. Asshole.]
It’s my intention to finish strong focusing on the economic challenges facing our state — just as we’ve seen with Boeing’s record-setting announcement a month ago, with Crane Company announcing 1,000 new jobs in Barnwell County a couple of weeks ago, or with Red Ventures, where I was earlier today, announcing 1,000 jobs in Lancaster County. I’ll also be focused on real opportunities for reform on the legislative front in making South Carolina more competitive in the global competition for jobs, investment and way of life. We’d ask that people from all corners of the state make their voices heard on this front.
Maybe it’s the mind’s inevitable draw to the salacious, from the sybarites to the Ned Flanders clones. But the ad-hoc House impeachment panel is going down Lovers’ Lane. It threw out 28 charges suggested by the State Ethics Commission, but on Monday began nailing additional charges to what will be considered for impeachment. And it goes back to that illicit nookie in Buenos Aires.
State Rep. Greg Delleney this morning said Gov. Mark Sanford arranged a 2008 economic development trip to Argentina so Sanford could meet with his mistress.
“It’s obvious that this was a personal trip and state business was just thrown in as a cover,” said Delleney, R-Chester, a member of the House subcommittee considering an impeachment resolution against Sanford.
Well, obviously. But, making that one flight — and frankly, unprovable allegations that Sanford took the trip just to get laid by a woman not his wife — is probably going to kill the impeachment effort. Committee chairman Jim Harrison and Rep. Walt McLeod tended to agree with Delleney, but our political bookie still says the odds are that neither men will vote to recommend impeachment to the full House Judiciary Committee.
But, sex will dominate the headlines and the thinking. Screwing around on your wife doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even if the guy is seen as even more of a creep. A few grand on the state dime, which was refunded? The charges look worse, but this looks essentially like the impeachment process against former President Bill Clinton.
House Republicans had been pissed off for years because they kept getting owned by Clinton (after he passed the learning curve in ‘93-’94). Faced with the fact that he lied about getting a hummer and diddling an intern with a cigar, he was suddenly up for trial on “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was a revenge play, pure and simple. Plus, it gave U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham the stage to become a national political figure.
And what happened was a total political fuck-up on the part of the House GOP. It got truly absurd when the House went through two Speakers in a week because Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston resigned because, horror of horrors, they cheated on their wives. The end? The impeachment battle was good for Clinton, good for Democrats in general but horrible for former Vice President Al Gore. The only people who got taken to task were congressional Republicans and Gore.
This is a big deal, as far as political intelligence. People have a low tolerance for constitution-based revenge when there are so many other pressing concerns. If the House panel does recommend impeaching Sanford, the chamber better move damn fast, or there will be fallout. The longer it seems like it, Sanford just looks like a very bad governor. Unfortunately, that’s not impeachable, either.
Hey, kids! Did you remember that Dec. 1 was another one of those prefiling days for the House? Well, it can be excused if you forgot, considering the thrilling back-and-forth between Gov. Mark Sanford’s high-priced attorneys and the ad-hoc House impeachment committee that morning. Actually, speaking of impeachment….
Rep. Jim Harrison, chairman of the committee, filed a resolution taking the lesser path, censuring the man with a love of Latin women with a penchant for Austrian economic theory. Like the impeachment resolution submitted by Rep. Greg Delleney, it uses some military terminology.
H. 4219: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CENSURE MARK C. SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR DERELICTION IN HIS DUTIES OF OFFICE AS GOVERNOR AND FOR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT THAT HAS BROUGHT DISHONOR TO HIMSELF, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO ITS CITIZENS.
On another note, the annual tax-free holiday on firearms in South Carolina brings a lot of yuks from the peanut gallery, and for good reason. A gun is not a necessity. Food is a necessity — how about eliminating sales tax on groceries, permanently? Eh, no, it’s important to make sure that sportsmen and those of other ideas (home security, building a militia in Oconee County) can buy a weapon of several hundred dollars and not pay sales tax. Really — if you have the cash to spring for a gun, you can chip in a few more bucks on sales tax without having to wait for a special time after Thanksgiving. However, Reps. Mike Pitts and Brian White want to make sure you can still get that tax-free gun.
H. 4220: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO REENACT THE “SECOND AMENDMENT RECOGNITION ACT” EXEMPTING FIREARMS SOLD ON THE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING OF EVERY YEAR.
A lot of states and municipalities have laws against scalping. As in, it’s illegal to buy a ticket to an event — usually sports or a concert — and resell it. Some have relaxed that to say you can sell your ticket, but it has to be at face value. And if you’ve walked around Williams-Brice Stadium on game day, you know that nobody is enforcing scalping laws. Rep. Bakari Sellers is attempting to throw out the law altogether.
H. 4223: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY REPEALING SECTIONS 16-17-710 AND 39-5-36 BOTH RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AND PRICE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESALE OF TICKETS TO EVENTS.
Finally, a bill that is likely to go nowhere. Sure, there are tons of bills that get referred to committee every year and never see the light of day, but if you have legislation that’s likely to play well among the base of the minority party (in this case, Democrats), forget about it. Rep. John King is putting in a hate crimes bill. South Carolina is a national leader in hate crimes, according to a recent study (what a surprise), but considering the conservative opinion is that every crime is a hate crime, this bill is DOA.
H. 4224: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 18 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16 SO AS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER WITH THE INTENT TO ASSAULT, INTIMIDATE, OR THREATEN A PERSON BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, RELIGION, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Today, the ad-hoc House committee on the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford had its first meeting to discuss the resolution put forward by Rep. Greg Delleney and set the plan for which the committee will discuss the issue and formulate a report.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell led off the proceedings by saying, “Removal from office is a very serious issue, and it is something that neither the Judiciary Committee nor the House takes lightly. The Committee members will give full consideration to all the facts in this case and will make an informed recommendation that reflects our state’s Constitution.
The amount of information we have to consider in this case is massive. I’m pleased and encouraged by the members’ willingness to conduct their work deliberatively so that we can properly address this issue and move our state forward. When we start the new Legislative session in January, we need to be fully prepared to begin working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most. Putting our citizens back to work needs to be our primary focus.”
From there, the talk was limited to the impeachment resolution, as the members had only just received the 1,000-plus word full report from the State Ethics Commission regarding misuse of state aircraft, improper seating upgrades on commercial aircraft and misuse of campaign funds. Rep. James Smith, in this light, made a motion, which was passed, to open up the SEC allegations to the investigative purview of the committee.
Beyond that, the main bone of contention was the position of Sanford as the commander-in-chief of, according to the S.C. Constitution, the military forces of the state. Delleney’s statement kicked things off, using military-style language.
“The Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety, in order to affect his absence from the state,” he said. “And, that conduct alone constitutes a dereliction of duty. He left his post, he left his state, he left his country without notifying anyone in authority. He was, in effect, AWOL.”
Rep. Walt McLeod, who looks to be against the resolution, said, “It’s a little shrill for a civilian to hear the comments made. As far as I know, I, at this time, nor the Governor, are members of a military organization. And, to speak about dereliction of duty, absent without leave, abandoning one’s post, are terms that are ordinarily reserved for those who are in uniform, and who are not civilian citizens of our state and nation.”
However, Smith, well-known for his service in Afghanistan, backed up the language, remarking that the words used were analogous to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“The commander-in-chief, I believe, should not be judged at a lesser standard than the soldiers and the airmen with whom he commands,” he said. “And, I think the analogy that was provided by Rep. Delleney is an appropriate one. We’re not trying him according to the UCMJ, this is not a trial. This is an impeachment process pursuant to the Constitution and the standard that we set is going to be an important one.”
Ultimately, nothing was settled on that matter, as of yet. It’s more expected that the committee won’t make a decision on what to do on any number of matters until the end of its meetings. Chairman Jim Harrison laid out a general idea of what is up ahead.
“It is my hope that we can complete our work, for the full Judiciary Committee to take up our report prior to Christmas,” he said. “This would enable full House debate on the issue, if it rises to that level, as soon in the legislative session as possible.”
There are three more meetings in the offing, set for the first week of December, each at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. They’re slotted for Dec. 1, Dec. 3 and Dec. 7. At the Dec. 3 meeting, the members will consider Sanford’s alleged violations of ethics law as it pertains to his air travel.
Image courtesy of the House Republican Caucus.
It’s Impeachment Meeting Eve. Fired up and ready to go? They’re getting the logistics nailed down, and it’s looking like it’s going to be a crowded affair. Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing the committee, and will be joined by Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
There’s an expected large media contingent coming, so there will be a specific area for credentialed media, and news photographers will be given general free reign as long as they don’t interrupt the proceedings. However, the only video camera in the room will be from ETV, which is good news, since video cameras and their peripherals tend to take up a lot of room.
If you’re interested, it’ll be at 1 p.m. Tuesday in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. It’s advised to show up early — it’ll probably fill up quickly.
Gov. Mark Sanford’s getting his neck stretched over the tree stump as legislators will be meeting next week in what’s called an ad-hoc committee to consider impeachment. Local Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing it, according to Rep. Alan Clemmons and the Associated Press.
After a couple months of it looking like impeachment momentum had hit a wall, having this committee meet and discuss removing one of the least effective governors of this state seems to point to the gears spinning again toward removing Sanford. According to the AP, “The meeting is to take up the issue at the heart of an impeachment resolution that four Republicans filed this week. It says Sanford left no one in charge of the state, a dereliction of duty, while he ‘directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials’ about where he was. His staff told reporters he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.”
Per Clemmons, the committee includes Harrison, Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
