Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have to appreciate a person who fights for the rights of the majority of the people.
And yes, there are THREE branches of government in America for a reason. If a clown can pack the court, a reasonable person can certainly propose legislation.
" If a clown can pack the court"
Are you referring to FDR, a DEM, when he tried to do it?
Love all these Constitution experts, by the way all you gun owners Militia call ups and deployments will be starting next month make sure your personal affairs are in order....
"all you gun owners Militia"
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. George Mason"
I was very confused about this too. I thought the recent SCOTUS decision meant that there could not be any federal law, either banning or allowing abortion, to apply to all 50 states.
I'm hoping someone with actual knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, the Dobbs ruling, and the newly proposed legislation can explain this.
The Court ruled that there was no right to abortion that already existed in the Constitution, such as the right to remain silent while under prosecution is a right that already exists in the Constitution and the right to own a firearm is a right that already exists in the Constitution.
That does not mean legislatures--any legislature, whether state or federal--cannot legislate (that is, "codify") a right. At that point, states would have to argue in court that people in their state do not have that federally mandated right...but such an argument would fail because the Constitution does not limit what rights people have.
For instance, the federal government codified that public accommodations cannot discriminate against people for reason of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. That is not contained in the Constitution, it was legislated...but the Supreme Court has held that such legislation is not unconstitutional.
Edit: If Congress mandated a right for one group that created a conflict with the rights of another group, that would be grounds for a court decision, but notice, that is not saying that the mandating of a right is ever, in itself, unconstitutional. "More rights" is never inherently unconstitutional.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 07-03-2022 at 07:01 AM..
I've never asserted the Tenth Amendment is null and void. I've never asserted the Tenth Amendment must not be followed. If you're going to put words in my mouth, please at least have them some semblance of intelligence & logic
Let's apply your reasoning on a couple other areas.
Congress enacted a Federal Minimum Wage law, yet the US Constitution appears not to grant such a specific power to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Is it your assertion that the Tenth Amendment ought to prohibit the Congress from establishing a Federal Minimum Wages?
Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency, yet the US Constitution appears not to grant such a specific power to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Is it your assertion that the Tenth Amendment ought to prohibit the Federal Government from establishing the Environmental Protection Agency?
There you are correct. As you say, Dobbs need not mention the Tenth Amendment -- or the
Twelfth, or the Twenty-Fifth - because all of them, while true and in effect, are 100% irrelevant to Dobbs.
I'm not trying to fool anyone.
Now tell me again - where did you go to law school? Enquiring minds want to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The Court ruled that there was no right to abortion that already existed in the Constitution, such as the right to remain silent while under prosecution is a right that already exists in the Constitution and the right to own a firearm is a right that already exists in the Constitution.
That does not mean legislatures--any legislature, whether state or federal--cannot legislate (that is, "codify") a right. At that point, states would have to argue in court that people in their state do not have that federally mandated right...but such an argument would fail because the Constitution does not limit what rights people have.
For instance, the federal government codified that public accommodations cannot discriminate against people for reason of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. That is not contained in the Constitution, it was legislated...but the Supreme Court has held that such legislation is not unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by moguldreamer View Post
There is nothing in the current case that implies abortion is unconstitutional. Just the opposite is true
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly
If SCOTUS determines that a fetus falls under “Persons†under the 14th amendment then yes it is unconstitutional because you are depriving that said person of life without due process.
The Court did not, however, determine in this decision that a fetus is a Person, so there is nothing in this case that implies abortion is unconstitutional.
The Court ruled that there was no right to abortion that already existed in the Constitution, such as the right to remain silent while under prosecution is a right that already exists in the Constitution and the right to own a firearm is a right that already exists in the Constitution.
That does not mean legislatures--any legislature, whether state or federal--cannot legislate (that is, "codify") a right. At that point, states would have to argue in court that people in their state do not have that federally mandated right...but such an argument would fail because the Constitution does not limit what rights people have.
For instance, the federal government codified that public accommodations cannot discriminate against people for reason of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. That is not contained in the Constitution, it was legislated...but the Supreme Court has held that such legislation is not unconstitutional.
Edit: If Congress mandated a right for one group that created a conflict with the rights of another group, that would be grounds for a court decision, but notice, that is not saying that the mandating of a right is ever, in itself, unconstitutional. "More rights" is never inherently unconstitutional.
The Constitution states that the federal government can only pass legislation regarding certain subjects - the enumerated powers. This is why the crime of murder, for example, is defined in state law. None of the enumerated powers would allow Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion (banning it nationally or protecting access nationally). If they try, the argument will be that it is a matter of interstate commerce. Not that it is, that's just the clause that Congress typically tries to point to when they don't actually have the authority to pass a particular piece of legislation. I think that argument can't hold water. With guns they can manage it because guns do cross state lines in commerce. But abortion is a service - it does not cross state lines. So which of the enumerated powers would allow Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion?
Abortion isn't a service when the abortion pill is used
And if Congress tries to legislate on that very small piece it might have more success, but that is not what is being discussed by Biden and others. Even that I don't think is a slam-dunk since you can't force a state to allow products it deems unsuitable within its borders. With the second amendment, a state can't ban guns. States can prohibit home deliveries of tobacco and alcohol, for example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
