SC Personhood Amendment – 55 House, 14 Senate members in support but 2/3 needed [ 83 in House, at least 30 in Senate ]

Pro-Personhood is Pro-Life
Mass Public Pro-Personhood / Pro-Life Lobbying Day set for March 16 ( Wed. )

Please plan to come March 16
to SC State House and Office Buildings in Columbia:

1) Meet with and lobby your SC State Senator
[ Call, make appt., bring a group ]

2) Meet with and lobby your SC State Representative
[ Call, make appt., bring a group ]

3) Move to SC State House 1st and 2nd Floor Lobbies, and then to 3rd Floor Public Viewing Gallery of Senate Chamber for Floor Vote***

*** One way or another, the Vote by Senators to advance or block S.719, the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment on March 16, is the Record Vote of where each SC Senator stands on legal Personhood for the preborn ( and therefore protection of their God-given, unalienable right to life under Article I, Section 3, of the South Carolina Constitution ).


SC Personhood Amendment Status Summary:

1.  SC Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) is refusing to assign S.719 to a Judiciary Subcommittee where it could receive a public hearing.  S.719 was introduced in the SC Senate on April 28, 2015, ten months ago. Yet despite the fact that Senator Larry Martin has been repeatedly asked to assign S.719 to a favorable subcommittee, he refuses to assign it to any Judiciary Subcommittee whatsoever, unless S.719 first passes out of the SC House.
[ Note:  SC House Judiciary Chairman Greg Delleney ( R-Chester and York ) has repeatedly said, publicly and privately, that IF personhood legislation is passed by the SC Senate, he will get it passed in the SC House ( A SC Personhood bill was passed one time by the SC House on April 14, 2005 ( 91 – Y, 10 – N ), albeit with a fatal flaw “exception” amendment ) ].

SC Senator Larry Martin is what is known as a “judicial supremacist”, erroneously believing that OPINIONS of the US Supreme Court are the supreme Law of the Land.  They are NOT.  According to a plain reading of the WRITTEN TEXT of the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution [ ], US Supreme Court OPINIONS are NOT the supreme Law of the Land.  [ Note: The “Supremacy Clause” is actually all of Clause 2 of Article VI. ]

The very first sentence of Article I., Section 1. of the United States Constitution states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

If ALL legislative Powers granted by the US Constitution are vested in the US Congress, then that leaves ZERO legislative Powers granted by the US Constitution vested in the US Supreme Court.  It is NOT within the constitutional authority of the US Supreme Court to legislate, to make law.  The Oath of Office of officeholders is to uphold the WRITTEN TEXT of the United States Constitution, NOT the OPINIONS of five members of the US Supreme Court !

       These concepts have been repeatedly upheld by United States Presidents ( Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln ), and constitutional scholars, authors, and attorneys:

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson:
The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the Constitution
” In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” ”

On March 4, 1861, in his First Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln said:

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

[ Note: Lincoln was referring to the US Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case ( 1857 ) OPINION, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, which not only denied the slave Dred Scott freedom and citizenship, but also reached back 37 years to arrogate to itself the authority to declare the 1820 Missouri Compromise passed by the United States Congress, to be unconstitutional.  The Missouri Compromise of 1820 ” regulated slavery in the country’s western territories by prohibiting the practice in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30 north, except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri .”  [ ].  Despite the ruling of the US Supreme Court declaring the 1820 Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional, and declaring the US Congress could not ban Slavery in the western territories, the United States Congress and President Abraham Lincoln did just that.  On June 19, 1862, the United States Congress ” ended slavery in the western territories.”  The text of this “law enacting emancipation in the Federal Territories” is posted here.

The pertinent point here is:  The United States Congress and the United States President DEFIED the OPINION of the US Supreme Court. ]
“Abortion is not legal” – Christine Ross and Herbert W. Titus, JD

Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges
October 8, 2015
[ 72 Law Professors and Others Reject Obergefell as “binding precedent” except for “specific plaintiffs” to case” ]

2.  This year 2016 is an election year for all 46 SC Senate seats and all 124 SC House of Representatives seats. The SC Election Commission 2016 Election Calendar lists the beginning of the filing period for all candidates seeking a political party nomination for the office of SC State Senate and SC State House of Representatives ( and other federal and local offices ) to be March 16, 2016.  This filing period closes at 12 noon on March 30, 2016.

3.  The SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment is filed in the SC House ( H.4093 ) and the SC Senate ( S.719 ).

a.  SC House of RepresentativesH.4093

(1)  In the SC House of Representatives, H.4093 has 53 co-sponsors, plus two more Representatives who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 55 members of the SC House of Representatives who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment. Two-thirds of the elected Representatives are needed ( 2/3 of 124 ) to pass H.4093 to place the SC Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2)  Two-thirds of 124 rounds up to 83 Representatives.  Presently 55 have indicated their support, leaving 28 more who are needed out of the remaining 69 Representatives in the SC House.  [ The SC House is currently made up of a total of 78 Republicans and 46 Democrats. ]
       b.  SC SenateS.719

(1)  In the SC Senate, S.719 has 11 co-sponsors, plus three more Senators who have signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge, but who have not signed on yet as co-sponsors, for a total of 14 members of the SC Senate who are supporting the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment.  Two-thirds of the elected Senators are needed ( 2/3 of 45 presently, with one seat vacant; normally 2/3 of 46 ) to pass the S.719 to place the Personhood Amendment on the General Election Ballot in South Carolina on November 8, 2016, for the people to vote.

(2)  Two-thirds of 45 is 30 Senators [ 2/3 of 46 rounds up to 31 Senators. ]  Presently 14 have indicated their support, leaving at least 16 currently [ possibly 17 later ] more who are needed out of the present remaining 31 Senators [ possibly 32 remaining Senators later if the vacant seat is filled ] in the SC Senate.  [ The SC Senate is currently made up of a total of 27 Republicans and 18 Democrats, with one seat vacant. ]
4.  List of all THIRTEEN ( 13 ) REPUBLICAN SC SENATORS who have neither yet co-sponsored S.719, nor have they signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge in support of S.719.  The Senator’s District Number, and the Counties which are included in that Senate District, are listed after each Senator’s name.  ( Most Counties are divided between Senate Districts. )

[ Members of the SC Senate ]

Thomas C. AlexanderDistrict 1 – Oconee & Pickens Counties – Map

Sean BennettDistrict 38 – Berkeley, Charleston & Dorchester Counties – Map

Paul G. Campbell, Jr.District 44 – Berkeley, Charleston & Dorchester Counties – Map

George E. “Chip” Campsen, IIIDistrict 43 – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton Counties – Map

Raymond E. Cleary, IIIDistrict 34 – Charleston, Georgetown & Horry Counties – Map

John E. CoursonDistrict 20 – Lexington & Richland Counties – Map

Tom DavisDistrict 46 – Beaufort & Jasper Counties – Map

Greg HembreeDistrict 28 – Dillon & Horry Counties – Map

Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.District 31 – Darlington & Florence Counties – Map

Larry A. MartinDistrict 2 – Pickens County – Map

Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.District 14 – Cherokee, Spartanburg, Union & York Counties – Map

Luke A. RankinDistrict 33 – Horry County – Map

Paul ThurmondDistrict 41 – Charleston & Dorchester Counties – Map


Pro-Personhood is Pro-Life

If your SC State Senator is listed above among the 13 Republican State Senators who have neither yet co-sponsored S.719, nor have they signed the SC Pastors Alliance Pledge in support of S.719, please contact / visit them immediately and continually, reminding
them that the language of this Personhood Amendment is virtually identical verbatim to the language of Republican Advisory Question #1 on the June 2014 Republican Primary Ballot, which passed by over 78% statewide ( 2014 Statewide Primary Election, go to page 10 ), with over 240,000 Republican Primary voters voting in favor.

Tell your Senator,  Let the People Vote !!!

( See February 4, 2016  “Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )” below and posted here. )

Even if an individual Senator is personally opposed to SC Personhood Legislation
( e.g., Senator Larry Martin ( R-Pickens ) and Senator George “Chip” Campsen, III
( R – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton ), remind them, in the concluding words of
the February 4, 2016 letter sent to them:  LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!

Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )
[ Excerpt ]

“Over the past 17 years of introducing Personhood BILLS in the SC Legislature ( 1998-2015 ), the General assembly has failed to establish justice for pre-birth human beings by actually passing any of these bills in both chambers.  S.719 introduced on April 28, 2015 is the first time a proposed Personhood Constitutional AMENDMENT has been introduced.  It is time to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE !!!”