NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate provides the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Saturday, May 4th, 2013

Senseless South Carolina lawmakers approve bill that seeks to nullify Patient Protection Act

Fol­low­ing in the foot­steps of the Repub­li­can-con­trolled state House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives in Okla­homa, six­ty-five mem­bers of South Car­oli­na’s House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives vot­ed this week to approve a bill that attempts to nul­li­fy the land­mark Patient Pro­tec­tion Act with­in the bor­ders of the Pal­met­to State.

The bill, H. 3101, seeks to:

… ren­der null and void cer­tain uncon­sti­tu­tion­al laws enact­ed by the Con­gress of the Unit­ed States tak­ing con­trol over the health insur­ance indus­try and man­dat­ing that indi­vid­u­als pur­chase health insur­ance under threat of penal­ty; to pro­hib­it cer­tain indi­vid­u­als from enforc­ing or attempt­ing to enforce such uncon­sti­tu­tion­al laws; and to estab­lish crim­i­nal penal­ties and civ­il lia­bil­i­ty for vio­lat­ing this article.

The prime spon­sor of the bill is Repub­li­can Bill Chum­ley. Chum­ley is either not aware that by attempt­ing to nul­li­fy fed­er­al law, he is vio­lat­ing the oath of office he swore or affirmed when he became a law­mak­er, or he is aware and sim­ply does­n’t care.

The Supreme Court of the Unit­ed States has repeat­ed­ly held that fed­er­al law trumps state law and states have no author­i­ty to nul­li­fy fed­er­al laws. In Coop­er v. Aaron (1958) the Court unequiv­o­cal­ly affirmed that the fed­er­al judi­cia­ry alone has the pow­er to inter­pret fed­er­al laws and decide their con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty. For state offi­cials to assume such pow­er would be a vio­la­tion of their oaths:

No state leg­is­la­tor or exec­u­tive or judi­cial offi­cer can war against the Con­sti­tu­tion with­out vio­lat­ing his under­tak­ing to sup­port it. Chief Jus­tice Mar­shall spoke for a unan­i­mous Court in say­ing that: ‘If the leg­is­la­tures of the sev­er­al states may, at will, annul the judg­ments of the courts of the Unit­ed States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judg­ments, the Con­sti­tu­tion itself becomes a solemn mockery.

A Gov­er­nor who asserts a pow­er to nul­li­fy a fed­er­al court order is sim­i­lar­ly restrained. If he had such pow­er, said Chief Jus­tice Hugh­es, in 1932, also for a unan­i­mous Court, ‘it is man­i­fest that the fiat of a state Gov­er­nor, and not the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Unit­ed States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restric­tions of the Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion upon the exer­cise of state pow­er would be but impo­tent phrases’.

The Supreme Court has found the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act to be con­sti­tu­tion­al. This deci­sion is bind­ing on South Car­oli­na and its elect­ed offi­cials, includ­ing Bill Chum­ley and his col­leagues — whether they like it or not. Thus, iron­i­cal­ly, H. 3101 — which attempts to make the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act unen­force­able — is itself unenforceable.

Chum­ley is free to dis­like and dis­agree with the Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Nation­al Fed­er­a­tion of Inde­pen­dent Busi­ness v. Sebe­lius.

But as an elect­ed leader who swore an oath to defend the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Unit­ed States, he must respect the Court’s inter­pre­ta­tion of the Constitution.

Sim­i­lar­ly, those of us who fer­vent­ly dis­agree with the Supreme Court’s Cor­po­ra­tions Unit­ed rul­ing have to respect that deci­sion, even though we may not like it. We are, of course, at lib­er­ty to pro­pose and dis­cuss chang­ing the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion to over­turn the deci­sion, and that is what the Move to Amend effort is all about.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation

One Comment

  1. To say that South Car­oli­na needs help would be a huge understatement… 

    # by Louis Weinstein :: May 9th, 2013 at 7:55 AM

One Ping

  1. […] Sense­less South Car­oli­na law­mak­ers approve bill that seeks to nul­li­fy Patient Pro­tec­tion Act […]

    Ping from Morning Rundown for May 6th, 2013 :: May 6th, 2013 at 9:36 AM
  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: