{"id":1299,"date":"2021-11-05T17:51:09","date_gmt":"2021-11-05T22:51:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/?p=1299"},"modified":"2021-11-05T17:51:09","modified_gmt":"2021-11-05T22:51:09","slug":"personhood-and-south-carolina-constitutional-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/05\/personhood-and-south-carolina-constitutional-law\/","title":{"rendered":"‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:’"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

“… nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”<\/p>\n

Constitution of the State of South Carolina, Article I, Section 3.
\n__________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>South Carolina Constitution
\n<\/a><\/b><\/span>ARTICLE I
\nDECLARATION OF RIGHTS<\/p>\n

SECTION 3. Privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection of laws.<\/p>\n

The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.scstatehouse.gov\/scconstitution\/A01.pdf
\n<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>__________________________________________________
\n__________________________________________________
\n<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

The language of the SC Constitution, Article I Declaration of Rights, Section 3, pertaining to the right to life is incorporated in both the SC Senate and SC House Personhood Act of South Carolina Bills:<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

From the text of S.381<\/a>, “Personhood Act of South Carolina”,<\/b> introduced January 12, 2021 in the SC Senate:<\/p>\n

Section 1-1-320.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (A)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.
\n
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (B)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of this State, <\/b>which provides that no person<\/u><\/b><\/span>\u00a0shall be deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human being.\u00a0 [ emphasis added ]
\n<\/span>__________________________________________________<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

From the text of H.3568<\/a>, “Personhood Act of South Carolina”,<\/b> introduced January 12, 2021 in the SC Senate:<\/p>\n

Section 1-1-330<\/a>.\u00a0 \u00a0 (A)\u00a0 \u00a0 The right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.
\n
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (B)\u00a0 \u00a0 The rights guaranteed by Section 3, Article I, of the Constitution of this State,<\/b> that no person<\/u><\/b><\/span> shall be deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human being.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 [ emphasis added ]
\n<\/span>__________________________________________________
\n__________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>History<\/u>: <\/b>Based upon the recommendation of constitutional attorney, scholar, author, and former Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University (Virginia Beach, VA) Herb Titus, J.D., the original design of personhood legislation in South Carolina, as first introduced in February 1998 in both the SC House and the SC Senate, was based upon the South Carolina State Constitution<\/b> for its authority, not the United States Constitution<\/u>. This legal strategy and structure, based upon the South Carolina State Constitution,<\/b> has been the case for each and all of the 23 consecutive years of Personhood legislation that has been active in the South Carolina Legislature, 1998 through 2021:
\n<\/b>
\n<\/span>[ Report<\/a> ]
\n2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568<\/a> and S.381<\/a>
\n– 23 Years<\/a> of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
\n<\/b>April 26, 2021
\n
\n<\/span>History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998-2020)
\n<\/b>http:\/\/christianlifeandliberty.net\/2021-04-11-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2020.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n


\n<\/span>This important point was emphasized in the written testimony<\/a> of Herb Titus at the very first public hearing for Personhood legislation in the SC Legislature on April 25, 2001. Herb Titus also testified live by telephone before the SC House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommitttee, consisting of Representatives (Ch.) Chip Campsen (R), Jim Harrison (R), Jay Lucas (R), Creighton Coleman (D), and Fletcher Smith (D). After several members of the public also testified, the Subcommittee then failed to report H<\/b><\/a>.3252<\/a> to the full SC House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 4 to 1 against<\/u><\/i><\/b> H<\/b><\/a>.3252<\/a>.\u00a0 All three “Republicans” and Creighton Coleman voted against<\/u><\/i><\/b> H<\/b><\/a>.3252<\/a>; only Democrat Fletcher Smith voted favorably. the first Legislator in South Carolina to vote in support of Personhood legislation.
\n
\n<\/span>Written Statement of Herb Titus on H.3252, “Right to Life Act of South Carolina”<\/a>
\ngiven to South Carolina House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee on April 25, 2001<\/a>
\n
\n<\/span>H<\/a>.3252<\/a> – “Right to Life Act of South Carolina” (SC Personhood Bill in 2001-2002 Session of SC General Assembly)
\n<\/b>(Herb Titus testified before the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee by telephone, in addition to submitting this written statement.)
\n
\n<\/span>Attorney, former College of Law and Government Dean, Herb Titus<\/u><\/b> (Excerpts from Written Statement, April 25, 2001):
\n<\/b>
\n<\/span>“I am appearing this day before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives for the State of South Carolina to testify in favor of the constitutionality of H.3252, the “Right to Life Act of South Carolina.”<\/i><\/b>\u00a0 [ 2001-2002 SC Personhood Bill ]
\n
\n<\/span>“H.3252, if enacted, would enable the South Carolina legislature to overcome the barriers to preventing full protection of the lives of preborn human beings. In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court based its holding that a woman had a right to an abortion upon its ruling that an unborn child was only “potential life,” not a fully-human life, and therefore, was not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. In contrast to this narrow interpretation of the meaning of “person” in the federal constitution, H.3252 recognizes that Article I, Section 3 of the <\/i><\/b>[ South Carolina ] state constitution contains a more expansive definition, vesting the due process guarantee of life, liberty and property, and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws, to every human person “at fertilization.”
\n<\/i><\/b>
\n<\/span>“If the right to life and to equal protection vest at fertilization, then a woman’s constitutional right [sic] to terminate her pregnancy, that would otherwise be\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/i><\/b>[ erroneously ] recognized by the United States Supreme Court under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, disappears.”
\n<\/i><\/b>
\n<\/span>“At the heart of the equal protection of the laws is the prohibition against denial of rights to a class of human beings, refusing to recognize them as legal persons before the law. … for South Carolina to afford the benefit of its homicide laws to one class of human beings, to the exclusion of another class, would be a denial of equal protection of the laws. Yet, that is precisely the result when the state does not extend the benefit of its homicide laws to human beings not yet delivered from the womb of their mothers, as contrasted to those who are so delivered.”
\n<\/i><\/b>
\n<\/span>“H.3252 rectifies this denial of equal protection, by recognizing that the constitutional protections afforded persons in Article I, Section 3 <\/i><\/b>[ of the South Carolina State Constitution ] must include human beings from the moment of fertilization. Otherwise, the State Constitution fails to fulfill its primary purpose, to preserve and perpetuate the liberties that God has given to all human beings, regardless of their status.”
\n<\/i><\/b>
\n<\/span>“In conclusion, H.3252 is constitutional, not in conflict with Roe v. Wade, because it is based upon an independent and adequate state constitutional ground which grants a more expansive right to life than the one afforded by the federal constitution as <\/i><\/b>[ erroneously ] interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.”
\n<\/i><\/b>_________________________________________________
\n_________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>Beginning with the 2013-2014 SC Legislative Session, the SC Personhood Bills in the SC House and SC Senate were revised to include, in addition to various legislative findings in the Preamble, the addition of an explicit reference to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as follows:
\n
\n<\/span>2013-2014 SC Personhood Bill, S.457<\/a>
\n<\/b>Section 1-1-340.
\n“This article is enacted pursuant to the power reserved to this State under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”<\/p>\n

2013-2014 SC Personhood Bill, H.3584
\n<\/a><\/b>Section 1-1-340.
\n“This article is enacted pursuant to the power reserved to this State under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
\n
\n<\/span>On March 13, 2014 and on April 14, 2014, public hearings on SC Personhood Bill, S.457<\/a> were conducted before a Subcommittee of the SC Senate Judiciary Committee, consisting of Senators (Ch.) Chip Campsen (R), Greg Gregory (R), Greg Hembree (G), Brad Hutto (D), and Karl Allen (D). At the end of the two Subcommittee hearings, Chairman Senator Chip Campsen’s Subcommittee failed to even vote on the bill !
\n
\n<\/span>During the March 13, 2014 Hearing, COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel for the Foundation of Moral Law [ morallaw.org<\/a> ]
\n( associated with twice-former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore ) testified telephonically to the Subcommittee in support of S.457.
\n
\n<\/b><\/span>COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law, Written Statement S.457 Senate Judiciary Subcomm. Hearing
\n<\/a><\/span>March 13, 2014
\n
\n<\/span>COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe, Senior Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law
\n<\/a><\/b><\/span>Professional Experience, Professional License, Education<\/a>
\n
\n<\/span>Attorney, Senior Counsel COL (Dr.) John Eidsmoe<\/u> (Excerpts from Written Statement):
\n
\n<\/span>“As Senior Counsel and Resident Scholar for the Foundation for Moral Law, and as one who has taught Constitutional Law I & II at various law schools for over twenty years, I have examined South Carolina S.457, believe it to be constitutional, and urge its passage.”
\n
\n<\/span>“Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution specifically define when personhood begins.\u00a0 The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),\u00a0 did not address when human life begins, but it did say the term “person” within the Fourteenth Amendment refers to persons already born.\u00a0 I do not believe this precludes the State of South Carolina from defining personhood as beginning at conception, …”
\n<\/i><\/b>
\n<\/span>“I understand that some South Carolina legislators are concerned about challenging Roe v. Wade because the U.S. Constitution, Article VI Sec. 2, declares the U.S. Constitution to be the “supreme Law of the Land.” True, but this means not just part of the Constitution but all of the Constitution<\/u>. <\/span> And because Article V declares that amendments when ratified “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,” the Tenth Amendment is part of the “supreme Law of the Land.”<\/u> <\/span> The Tenth Amendment provides that <\/i>“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.”\u00a0 Wherever the Constitution delegates powers to the federal government, that is the supreme law of the land.\u00a0 But wherever the Constitution reserves powers to the states, that is equally the supreme law of the land<\/u>.\u00a0 <\/span>I would argue that the Constitution nowhere delegates to the federal government the power to determine when personhood begins.\u00a0 Therefore, the power to determine when personhood begins is by the Tenth Amendment reserved to the states, and that is the supreme law of the land<\/u>.”
\n<\/span><\/i><\/b>[ emphasis added ]
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>“S.457 is well-drafted and a very good place to make this defense.\u00a0 I hope and pray that South Carolina will lead the way by enacting S. 457, and if it is challenged in court the Foundation for Moral Law will be pleased to assist South Carolina in the defense of the law and the defense of the unborn child.”
\n<\/i><\/b>__________________________________________________
\n__________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND END<\/u><\/span> CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” IN SOUTH CAROLINA WAS FIRST FILED IN THE SC LEGISLATURE 23 YEARS AGO IN 1998, AND HAS BEEN ACTIVE EVERY YEAR SINCE:
\n
\n<\/span><\/b>[ Report<\/a> ]
\n2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568<\/a> and S.381<\/a>
\n– 23 Years<\/a> of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
\n<\/b>April 26, 2021
\n
\n<\/span>History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998-2020)
\n<\/b>http:\/\/christianlifeandliberty.net\/2021-04-11-History-of-Personhood-Legislation-in-South-Carolina-1998-2020.pdf
\n<\/a>
\n<\/span>PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING<\/u><\/span> Child-Murder by “Abortion” in South Carolina.
\n\u00a0<\/span><\/b>_________________________________________________
\n_________________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>Ignore Roe !
\n
\n<\/span>Interpose !
\n( LesserMagistrate.com<\/a> )
\n<\/b>
\n<\/span>Establish Justice, Now !
\n
\n<\/span>END<\/u><\/span> Child-Murder by “Abortion” Now !
\n
\n<\/span>PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !
\n<\/b>
\n<\/span>“Personhood Act of South Carolina”
\n<\/b>( 2021-2022 Session of SC Legislature )
\n
\n<\/span>S.381
\nH.3568
\n<\/b>(scstatehouse.gov<\/a>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

God says,
\n
\n<\/span>“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”
\n
\n<\/span>Exodus 20:13, KJV<\/p>\n

ChristiansforPersonhood.com<\/a><\/p>\n

________________________________________
\n________________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina State Law:’<\/b><\/p>\n

Christians for Personhood
\nNov 2, 2021
\nhttp:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/02\/personhood-and-south-carolina-state-law<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

_______________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>Videos \/ PERSONHOOD IS THE KEY TO ENDING “ABORTION” IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’<\/b><\/p>\n

Christians for Personhood
\nOct 25, 2021
\nhttp:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/10\/25\/videos-personhood-is-the-key-to-ending-abortion-in-the-united-states-of-america<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

_______________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>“Good” is the Enemy of God’s Best: Personhood vs Incrementalism<\/b><\/p>\n

Christians for Personhood
\nOct 10, 2021
\nhttp:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/10\/10\/good-is-the-enemy-of-gods-best-personhood-vs-incrementalism
\n<\/a><\/span>
\n<\/span>______________________________________
\n
\n<\/span>‘The Texas Heartbeat child-murder by “abortion” regulation and therefore perpetuation law, is unjust; it does not establish justice, as the LORD requires of Man’<\/b><\/p>\n

Christians for Personhood
\nSept 6, 2021
\nhttp:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/2021\/09\/06\/the-texas-heartbeat-child-murder-by-abortion-regulation-and-therefore-perpetuation-law-is-unjust-it-does-not-establish-justice-as-the-lord-requires-of-man-2<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

_________________________________
\n_________________________________<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law: “… nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[53,54,57,5],"tags":[55,118,104,12,14],"class_list":["post-1299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abolitionism","category-interposition","category-justice","category-personhood","tag-abolish-abortion","tag-establish-justice","tag-interposition","tag-personhood","tag-roe-v-wade"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1299"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1320,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions\/1320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/christiansforpersonhood.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}