Limited SC Heritage Act Constitutional

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Good news out of South Carolina when it comes to preserving historical monuments.

https://www.fitsnews.com/2021/09/22/south-carolina-supreme-court-rules-on-heritage-act/

The South Carolina supreme court has issued its long-awaited ruling on South Carolina's so-called "Heritage Act," concluding (as expected) that the state has the authority to determine the disposition of various historical markers, monuments and other designations across the Palmetto State. However, a provision of the 2000 law requiring a supermajority of the legislature to remove or modify such markers was struck down.​
"We find unconstitutional the procedural provision in subsection purporting to restrict the General Assembly's legislative power by imposing a supermajority voting requirement to amend or repeal (the law)," the court ruled. "We find no constitutional violation in the substantive provisions … preventing the relocation, removal, renaming, or rededication of monuments, memorials, streets, bridges, parks, or other structures."​
The unanimous opinion was authored by justice John Few.​
The ruling conforms with an opinion issued last June by the office of S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson. It also conforms with this news outlet's own analysis of the law, also published last June.​
"The Heritage Act is constitutional," S.C. solicitor general Bob Cook wrote in the opinion (.pdf). "The General Assembly possesses paramount authority over public property, public places or public areas of the State and its political subdivisions, and thus may protect monuments and memorials dedicated to past wars or to honor its citizens as it deems appropriate."​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top