Reader T sends in a funny story about the power of the NRA, and the idiocy of legislators, in the Palmetto state:
Last February, South Carolina state representative Mike Pitts introduced H4516 into the State Legislature. The purpose of the law, according to its preamble, is “to allow nonprofit organizations to acquire (alcoholic beverage) permits for a limited duration under certain circumstances and limitations.” The specific organizations Pitt cited as needing a streamlined application process for temporary booze permits were the National Rifle Association and the National Wild Turkey Federation, two organizations of which Pitt is a proud member.
[….][S]o anxious to do the bidding of the NRA was the state legislature that it passed H4516 without a dissenting vote. In June, Governor and Appalachian Trail enthusiast Mark Sanford signed the bill into law, apparently without reading it. I say “apparently without reading it” because the law, as it turns out, doesn’t just make it easier for the NRA to hold boozy fundraisers. It also outlaws the issuance of temporary liquor licenses to for-profit entities.
[….]Starting in January, the Department of Revenue will only grant special-event permits to serve beer and wine to nonprofit organizations and political parties. They will stop issuing permits to businesses and individuals — promoters, caterers and other event organizers, for example — who must obtain licenses every time they want to serve beer and wine in a location without a permanent beer and wine license.
Idiots.
Joseph Nobles
This makes me laugh. The Senate Democrats leaving a severability clause out of the ACA (healthcare reform) gives me gas.
bkny
hey will stop issuing permits to businesses and individuals — promoters, caterers and other event organizers, for example — who must obtain licenses every time they want to serve beer and wine in a location without a permanent beer and wine license.
hahahaha … so much for smaller government for their business pals. watch this raise more of a shitstorm than any other issue.
JN: call me suspicious, but i really doubt that was something overlooked by the dems.
Joseph Nobles
@bkny: You think they took severability out on purpose? It was in the House bill that was sent to the Senate. How do you figure they put a poison pill into the legislation so it could get royally screwed in the inevitiable legislation? What gain do the Democrats get from that?
Steve
@Joseph Nobles: Do you know that the severability clause was left out by mistake, or are you just assuming it was a screw-up because TPM tells you so?
Joseph Nobles
@Steve: I honestly can’t think of a reason why Democrats would leave severability out of the ACA. If I could, then I could either get behind it or excoriate it. Right now, fuckup is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Admiral_Komack
Hey, now!
It’s an effort to stop Big Government…one drink at a time…Sponsored by Wild Turkey/snark.
Steve
@Joseph Nobles: Right now, the main argument being used in court to defend the ACA is that even if the mandate isn’t considered a regulation of commercial activity for Commerce Clause purposes (the opposing argument is that the mandate regulates economic INactivity), it’s necessary in order for the bill as a whole to function.
I think a severability clause would have undercut that argument just a little bit. A severability clause would have been a big fat invitation to the courts to just strike down the mandate and leave everything else intact, while in reality the whole thing falls apart if you lose the mandate.
Even without a severability clause, courts will still look at whether the whole bill needs to be deemed unconstitutional if there’s a problem with one part of it. It’s not like there’s some rock-solid rule that says if you lose one comma, the whole thing goes.
Lee
@Joseph Nobles:
Apparently they don’t need (or think they need) the severability clause
Klein on the clause
Joseph Nobles
@Steve: I should have made it clear I knew the courts wouldn’t throw the whole thing out for a comma. The whole spectacle of picking over it in the courts is what inspires my dyspepsia. You’re saying that the courts are viewing the prospects with the same enthusiasm, and that’s what the Democrats were thinking.
OK, at least it’s a reason I can understand.
David B.
How does the National Wild Turkey Federation not have a liquor license? Is Rep. Jim Beam holding it up?
Martin
@Joseph Nobles: It was left out because it was probably undesirable. If the mandate is yanked, then the government is fucked because the mandate was necessary to shift costs away from government. The mandate largely pays for the bill. Because of that, the mandate isn’t some kind of amendment, it’s a core feature of the bill so they want the courts to not treat it in isolation – and frankly, if that takes the whole bill down, they might be okay with that – or else they (realities of politics aside) would plug that hole with a public option.
The question becomes ‘does the federal government have the right to shift inevitable medical costs out of Medicare/Medicaid onto consumers by requiring them to maintain medical coverage until they reach these programs’. The government as part of their defense of the act can point to Congress’ mandate that hospitals that receive govt funding treat patients that arrive at the ER, and that there’s already a mandate for care, and this just balances that with an individual mandate to be able to pay. From an earlier ruling on the mandate:
The court ruled that not having insurance was an ‘activity’ and therefore could be covered under the Commerce Clause. That’s likely where this whole argument will hinge. If there was no mandate to provide care, and I can’t imagine the courts saying ‘sure, ERs can dump people on the sidewalk who don’t have insurance’ then I don’t see how they can then require hospitals and the government to accept full responsibility for those costs.
Truth is, the mandate should have been put in place when EMTALA was passed back in 86. It created an unfunded mandate on the private sector and ACA is simply balancing that out by introducing a mandate to provide that funding. I don’t see how ACA would get struck down without EMTALA also getting struck down.
People seem to have really gotten way out in the weeds on the mandate, IMO.
The Grand Panjandrum
Mark Sanford probably breathed a sigh of relief knowing the AT Conservancy can still hold fundraisers.
Peter VE
Time to open a “non-profit” in SC….
Mike in NC
In SC, reading is something only effete Yankees and Commies do.
Ruckus
Almost 40 years ago I lived in SC for 2 years. It’s good to see that some of the state is still resisting bringing the state out of the 18th century. Some things never seem to change.
Admiral_Komack
@David B.:
Yes, and Old Grand Dad is none too happy about it.
DPirate
I think its a good law. There ought to be no liquor licensing, period.Anyone that wants to sell booze should be able to, at any time.