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.
That doesn't say what you think it does. The enumeration of powers does not delimit the areas in which those powers can be exercised. The "power" of Congress is the ability to legislate for the public good...that does not say "Only in matters of the Navy" or "only in matters of the Post Office."
That doesn't say what you think it does. The enumeration of powers does not delimit the areas in which those powers can be exercised. The "power" of Congress is the ability to legislate for the public good...that does not say "Only in matters of the Navy" or "only in matters of the Post Office."
I respectfully disagree. Probably the best example I can give is The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was challenged as exceeding Congress' powers under Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. While I 100% support the policies of The Civil Rights Act, I also think this is an example of what I was saying earlier - the Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 is where Congress tries to wedge legislation that it doesn't have clear authority to pass. The second is the power to tax, but that is irrelevant here. The Supreme Court held that Congress had the power to pass Title II of The Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination by private businesses) under the Commerce Clause. I think it's a stretch. If Congress had the power to simply "legislate for the public good" I expect that would have been the reason The Civil Rights Act was upheld by SCOTUS rather than the Commerce Clause.
I respectfully disagree. Probably the best example I can give is The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was challenged as exceeding Congress' powers under Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. While I 100% support the policies of The Civil Rights Act, I also think this is an example of what I was saying earlier - the Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 is where Congress tries to wedge legislation that it doesn't have a clear authority to pass. The second is the power to tax, but that is irrelevant here. The Supreme Court held that Congress had the power to pass Title II of The Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination by private businesses) under the Commerce Clause. I think it's a stretch. If Congress had the power to simply "legislate for the public good" I expect that would have been the reason The Civil Right Act was upheld, not the Commerce Clause.
That is the proof against your claim. The Civil Rights Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Or are you expecting this court to repeal it?
I don't expect anyone will be challenging The Civil Rights Act at this point in time, and the Court can't simply overrule legislation without a case in front of it presenting the challenge. I think SCOTUS at the time was willing to stretch things to keep The Civil Rights Act in place.
In Roe v. Wade, the question was, "Does the US Constitution have an implied right to an abortion that is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments?"
Roe held that the US Constitution does indeed find such an implied right. In the current case, SCOTUS said Roe was wrongly decided and no such implied right to an abortion is found inside the right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. <==Note the Tenth Amendment is not part of SCOTUS consideration.
In the current case, Roboteer mistakenly applies the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, Roboteer incorrectly frames the question before the court in Dobbs:
Roboteer's framing of the question above (and his assertion of the answer) is incorrect - it was never about the Federal Governments' authority to make laws governing abortion. Indeed, the entire Dobbs case says just the opposite: because there is no implied right to an abortion, the Federal Government can make lots and lots and lots of laws governing abortion, just as the Federal Government can make lots and lots of laws regarding many things in our life such as tailpipe emissions from cars and tracking cookies in web browsers selling heroin to elementary school kids and everything else you can imagine.
The text of the Dobbs decision states clearly:
See the bold phrase in the Dobbs decision. Roboteer mistakenly asserts that means The States. It does not. It means precisely what it says: the people and their elected representatives, and that means both the State legislatures and the nation's Congress.
A bit farther along in the text of the decision is the following:
In the bold phrase above, SCOTUS shows the major problem with Roe - it prevented The People through their Elected Representatives from having a say in the matter.
Indeed, NOWHERE in Dobbs does SCOTUS say or imply anything remotely similar to "the States and only the States can make laws regulating abortion, and Congress, even though it represents The People, is enjoined from making laws about abortion."
Thank you for taking the time to explain this so thoroughly. It makes a great deal of sense now.
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?
I don't expect anyone will be challenging The Civil Rights Act at this point in time, and the Court can't simply overrule legislation without a case in front of it presenting the challenge. I think SCOTUS at the time was willing to stretch things to keep The Civil Rights Act in place.
That phrase I bolded sounds as if you are expecting or hoping this Court will repeal the Civil Rights Act.
I'm pretty sure the Voting Rights Act will be brought before it, possibly both of them will.
Abortion services itself does not cross state line.
There is no mobile abortion truck traveling among states.
People are crossing state lines...quite the difference.
Organizations like Planned Parenthood do have presences in various states.
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.
