Category Archives: Constitutional Amendment

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

Published by:

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 [ www.constitutionus.com ], 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

http://christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW05.DOC
” 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.” ”
https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-hodges%E2%80%AF/

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.”
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

[ 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 .”  [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise ].  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
LIFE ADVOCATE, MAY/JUNE 1999
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/HerbTitus0501.doc

Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges
https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-hodges%E2%80%AF/
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 Senatehttp://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?chamber=S ]

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 !!!”

Ted Cruz on Personhood? – Views of American Right to Life, Christians for Personhood, PersonhoodUSA

Published by:

Ted Cruz has posted a new video where he says “I enthusiastically support that Resolution”, referring to a June 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question which asked voters to vote “Yes” or “No” on language adding a personhood amendment to the South Carolina Constitution.  Statewide, this Advisory Question passed by over 78%, with over 240,000 Republican Primary voters saying “Yes”.

However, neither Ted Cruz in his new video, nor PersonhoodUSA in their Feb. 17, 2016 MEDIA ADVISORY below, say anything about the ACTUAL SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( S.719, H .4093 ) which has nearly the identical, verbatim language of the 2014 Republican Primary Advisory Question; which bills are being currently promoted by Christians for Personhood, Personhood South Carolina, and Voice of the Unborn, RIGHT NOW, in February 2016 !

In fact, in a YouTube video posted January 8, 2016 recording Ted Cruz while campaigning in Iowa, Ted Cruz specifically said,  “I have not supported personhood legislation because I think, and the pro-life community is divided on this, but I think personhood legislation can be counterproductive because it focuses on issues that are unrelated to protecting unborn children [ sic ], …”  [ At 10:45 into YouTube video ]

In over three years as a United States Senator, Ted Cruz has never sponsored, nor co-sponsored any Personhood Bills in the United States Senate.  [ Presently, there are two principled Personhood Bills in the US House: HR 426  and HR 2761 – each bill can be viewed at www.Congress.gov.  HR 2761 has the added feature of invoking the authority and power of the United States Congress to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. ]

American Right to Life has posted a detailed report and analysis of the contradictory positions taken by Ted Cruz on “abortion” at: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ted-cruz-abortion

[]
Ted Cruz
Presidential Candidate
Tier 2 – Personhood Whenever

As a Republican primary candidate, Ted Cruz has taken contradictory positions on abortion and it is sobering to realize that his effort to get votes from the Republican base could explain this behavior.

_________________________
_________________________

Additional links:

1) Introduction of S.719 in SC Senate – April 28, 2015 – Christians for Personhood press release

2) Introduction of H.4093 in SC House – April 30, 2015 Christians for Personhood press release

3) Personhood Questionnaire for 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates
    December 29, 2015 – Christians for Personhood report

4) No Completed Personhood Questionnaires Received from 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates
January 27, 2016 –
Christians for Personhood report

5) Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )
Subj: County Results for Republican Advisory Q #1, June 2014 Republican Primary
February 5, 2016 –
Christians for Personhood Open Letter

6) Ted Cruz Does Not Support Personhood Legislation
February 6, 2016 –
Christians for Personhood report

7) SC Personhood Amendment – 52 House, 13 Senate members in support but 2/3 needed [ 83 in House, at least 30 in Senate ]
February 15, 2016 –
Christians for Personhood report

_______________________________
_______________________________

PersonhoodUSA press release:

79% of South Carolina GOP Voters Support Personhood
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1216777437.html

_______________________________________

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016
From: Christian Newswire <newsdesk@christiannewswire.com>
Subject: 79% of South Carolina GOP Voters Support Personhood

79% of South Carolina GOP Voters Support Personhood

Contact: Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA, 303-803-0598

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 17, 2016 / Christian Newswire/ — A new video from Senator Ted Cruz affirms South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, in which 79% of Republicans called for a Personhood amendment to the state constitution.

Cruz states that he would support legislation like South Carolina’s Personhood resolution, which he mentioned specifically. In a crowded
Republican race, it’s noteworthy that Personhood USA’s resolution passed with a higher percentage than any presidential GOP candidate
has ever won with in South Carolina.

The question read: “Should Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution be amended to include the following language? The privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so 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. These rights shall extend to both born and pre-born persons beginning at conception.”

Personhood USA’s resolution in South Carolina passed by a landslide majority, gathering nearly a quarter of a million affirmative votes, and was the largest show of support by percentage in any public vote held on personhood.

“Candidates in the presidential race cannot forget that 79% of the base in South Carolina believes that preborn children deserve full legal protection,” stated Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA Communications Director. “Truly pro-life candidates must not lose sight of the fact that the majority of South Carolina voters in the primary have already voted in support of full personhood rights for unborn children.”

Ted Cruz Video Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQlmvEQFgV4

[ Edited ]

Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )

Published by:

 Christians for Personhood

 P.O. Box 12222, Columbia, S.C.  29211

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

God says: “Thou shalt not kill (murder).”   Exodus 20:13, KJV     

 

February 4, 2016

To: Open Letter to REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators ( 27 )

Cc:  Mark Cheslak, Chairman / Jim Schirmer, Vice Chairman, Christians for Personhood, Columbia, SC

Richard Cash, Executive Director, Personhood South Carolina, Piedmont, SC

Subj: County Results for Republican Advisory Q #1, June 2014 Republican Primary

Dear REPUBLICAN South Carolina Senators,     

Attached to this letter is a print-out from the South Carolina Election Commission website which shows the Official Results by County for Republican Advisory Question #1, in the June 2014 Statewide Primary Election.

The raw vote totals are displayed, which totaled 240,453 ( 78.6% ) in favor of Republican Advisory Question #1, out of a total of 305,726 votes cast. Each and every County of the 45 Counties which reported showed a large majority in favor of Republican Advisory Question #1, ranging from a high of 88.1% of the voters to a low of 69.2% of the voters in these 45 Counties.

The text of Republican Advisory Question #1 on the Official Ballot, read as follows:

“Should Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution be amended to include the following language?” 

“The privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so 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. These rights shall extend to both born and pre-born persons beginning at conception.”    Yes [   ]    No  [   ]

 On the reverse side of this letter is a list of the County Results for Republican Advisory Q #1, June 2014 Republican Primary ( by Percentage ), calculated from the raw vote data on SC Election Commission website.

On April 28, 2015, a Joint Resolution ( S.719 ) was introduced in the South Carolina Senate to place virtually the identical, verbatim language which appeared in Republican Advisory Q #1, in the June 2014 Republican Primary, as an actual proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2016.

[The only difference is the removal of the hyphen in the word ‘preborn’. ]

There are presently nine Senate co-sponsors of S.719, the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment:

Bright, Bryant, Cromer, Fair, Grooms, S. Martin, Massey, Shealy, Turner. [ If you have not signed on yet as a co-sponsor, please do so as soon as possible. Why should there not be 27 Republican Senate co-sponsors ? ]

In addition, the SC Personhood Project led by Personhood South Carolina, has received the pledges ( https://personhood.sc/pledge/ ) of eight SC Senators:  Bright, Bryant, Corbin, Fair, Gregory, Hayes, Shealy, Verdin [ If you have not yet signed the pledge, please go to https://personhood.sc/ to download pledge. ]

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 !!! 

Jesus Christ is “the King of kings, and Lord of lords” ( 1 Timothy 6:15, KJV ),

Steve Lefemine

exec. dir., Christians for Personhood  ( CP@spiritcom.net )

 

County Results for Republican Advisory Q #1, June 2014 Republican Primary ( by Percentage ):

[ Calculated from raw vote data on SC Election Commission website ] 

Abbeville: Yes – 85.4%; No – 14.6%

Aiken: Yes – 79.7%; No – 20.3%

Allendale: Yes – 73.8%; No – 26.2%

Anderson: Yes – 81.8%; No – 18.2%

Bamberg: Yes – 80.0%; No – 20.0

Barnwell: Yes – 81.4%; No – 18.6%

Beaufort: Yes – 74.4%; No – 25.6%

Berkeley: Yes – 77.5%; No – 22.5%

Calhoun: Yes – 79.5%; No – 20.5%

Charleston: Yes – 69.7%; No – 30.3%

Cherokee: Yes – 84.9%; No – 15.1%

Chester: Yes – 88.1%; No – 11.9%

Chesterfield: Yes – 85.2%; No – 14.8%

Clarendon: Yes – 82.5%; No – 17.5%

Colleton: Yes – 74.3%; No – 25.7%

Darlington: Yes – 81.5%; No – 18.5%

Dillon: Yes – 85.2%; No – 14.8%

Dorchester: Yes – 75.8%; No – 24.2%

Edgefield: Yes – 83.2%; No – 16.8%

Fairfield: Yes – 82.3%; No – 17.7%

Florence: Yes – 82.2%; No – 17.8%

Georgetown: Yes – 72.4%; No – 27.6%

Greenville: Yes – 82.9%; No – 17.1%

Greenwood: Yes – 82.1%; No – 17.9%

Hampton: Yes – 79.8%; No – 20.2%

Horry: Yes – 77.0%; No – 23.0%

Jasper: Yes – 76.2%; No – 23.8%

Kershaw: Yes – 76.7%; No – 23.3%

Lancaster: Yes – 81.2%; No – 18.8%

Laurens: Yes – 84.2%; No – 15.8%

Lee: Yes – 83.6%; No – 16.4%

Lexington: Yes – 77.0%; No – 23.0%

Marion: Yes – 81.9%; No – 18.1%

Marlboro: Yes – 81.9%; No – 18.1%

McCormick: Yes – 79.4%; No – 20.6%

Newberry: Yes – 76.9%; No – 23.1%

Oconee: Yes – 76.6%; No – 23.4%

Orangeburg: Yes – 81.2%; No – 18.8%

Pickens: Yes – 82.1%; No – 17.9%

Richland: Yes – 69.2%; No – 30.8%

Saluda: Yes – 82.1%; No – 17.9%

Spartanburg: Yes – 82.5%; No – 17.5%

Sumter: Yes – 82.7%; No – 17.3%

Union: Yes – 87.3%; No – 12.7%

York: Yes – 81.6%; No – 18.4%

_____________________________

Total: Yes – 78.6%; No – 21.4%

South Carolina Lawmakers Introduce Bills to Bring Up Vote on Personhood of Unborn

Published by:

By Heather Clark – Posted at Christian News Network:

Baby Hand pdCOLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina lawmakers have formally introduced companion bills that would bring the issue of the personhood of the unborn before voters for the 2016 election.

Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) and Rep. Bill Chumley (R-Spartanburg), both Christians, introduced resolutions before the legislature this week that would allow residents to decide whether the state Constitution should be clarified to note that human rights apply to the unborn.

“Must Article I of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to add Section 3.a. to provide that the privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so 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? These rights shall extend to both born and preborn persons beginning at conception,” S. 719 and H. 4093 read.

The resolution must be approved by two-thirds of the legislature before it can appear on the ballot. …

Read more here…

Press Release: SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment (H. 4093 Introduced)

Published by:

SC PERSONHOOD CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

H.4093 Introduced in SC House April 29, 2015, Companion to S.719

PRESS RELEASE
FOR RELEASE:  Thursday, April 30, 2015

FOR FURTHER INFO:Contact, Steve Lefemine, exec.dir., Christians for Personhood

Press Release posted at: http://christiansforpersonhood.com
PO Box 12222, Columbia, South Carolina  29211; CP@spiritcom.net

[COLUMBIA, SC]  The SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( H.4093 ) was introduced in the SC House April 29, sponsored by Rep. Bill Chumley ( R-Gvl/Spart ).  This year is the first session of the SC General Assembly in which personhood constitutional amendment legislation has been filed in SC.  H.4093 is a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the SC Constitution which must first be passed by 2/3 of the SC Legislators in both the House and the Senate, in order to allow SC citizens the opportunity to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on this question on the November 2016 ballot:

“Must Article I of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to add Section 3.a. to provide that the privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina and the United States shall not be abridged, so 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. These rights shall extend to both born and preborn persons beginning at conception?”

SC Legislators have had their opportunity to protect the unborn for the past 17 years, during which Personhood Bills have been active in the SC Legislature each and every year ( 1998 – 2015 ).  However, they have failed to do their God-given ( Romans 13:1-4, KJV ), Oath-sworn duty, to “establish Justice” ( Preamble, United States Constitution ).

It is time to let the people vote.  The headline of a notice by Voice of the Unborn about a personhood constitutional amendment, published in The Times Examiner ( Greenville, SC ), April 15, 2015, stated it clearly:  LET US VOTE!

Glory to God, He has already decided.  God says: “Thou shalt not kill ( murder ).”  Exodus 20:13, KJV.  Amen !

Voters in the June 2014 Republican Primary have already approved a personhood constitutional amendment, which won by more than 78% overall in the 45 SC counties in which it appeared on the Official Ballot as Advisory Question #1.  Praise God !  Except for the removal of one hyphen in the word ‘pre-born’, the SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment ( H.4093 ) introduced today, is exactly, word for word, identically verbatim to what the Republican Primary voters already approved by more than 78% in June 2014.  So we are calling on SC Legislators, not only to let the people vote, but to let the people vote on what over 240,000 Republican Primary voters have already shown by their votes they believe !!!

Christians among America’s forefathers rendered the historic battlecryNo King but King Jesus!”. [ 1 Tim. 6:15, KJV. ] Beginning in the American Revolutionary period, 240 years ago, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were used for perhaps a century or more ( including at times during the 1867-1877 period at USC Law School in Columbia, SC ) to instruct America’s lawyers. Blackstone wrote:Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. … To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and, from these prohibitions, arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. … Nay, if any human law should allow or injoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law,…”  Blackstone sourced the revealed or divine law thusly, “The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.” (i.e., the Bible)  [ Introduction. Section IIOF THE NATURE OF LAWS IN GENERAL, p.28, ( pub’d ) 1863 ]

With H.4093 introduced, next is assignment to a SC House Judiciary Subcommittee, most likely Constitutional Laws, for a public hearing and passage.  Call, write, e-mail, visit Rep. Greg Delleney ( R-Chester/York ), Chairman of the SC House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Bruce Bannister ( R-Greenville ), Chairman of the Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee, and ask them both for a public hearing and passage of H.4093Contact Rep. Greg Delleney in Columbia: 512 Blatt Bldg, Columbia, SC 29201 / 803-734-3120; and in Chester: PO Drawer 808, Chester, SC 29706 / Home 803-385-3580.  Contact Rep. Bruce Bannister in Columbia: 518B Blatt Bldg, Columbia, SC 29201 / 803-734-3138; and in GreenvillePO Box 10007, Greenville, SC 29603 / Home 864-676-9250.

– ### –