- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can R v W be codified into law, post USSC decision?
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:06 am
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:06 am
trying to get an answer from someone with an actual legal/political background as to if/how the gov't can legalize RvW after the supreme court has removed federal protections
25
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:07 am to MJackson
Legally? Yes
Politically? No
Politically? No
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:07 am to AggieHank86
Spot on, Hankster.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:08 am to MJackson
Sure.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:10 am to AggieHank86
Ben Shapiro was saying it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Not clear as to why.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:11 am to MJackson
I would think that a constitutional amendment would be required. Good luck with that.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:12 am to Lou Pai
I think it would according to current Justices. I think Kavanaugh even implicitly leaves that door open.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:12 am to MJackson
If they wanted it to become law they would have made it so in the last 50 years. Ever wondered why they didn’t?
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Legally? Yes
Politically? No
This.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:14 am to the808bass
If they tried to do it at the federal level, which is what Biden is suggesting, I'd expect it to be met with 10th amendment challenges.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:14 am to Lou Pai
quote:
Ben Shapiro was saying it wouldn't pass constitutional muster.
Unless the constitution was amended.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:15 am to RobertFootball
quote:
If they wanted it to become law they would have made it so in the last 50 years. Ever wondered why they didn’t?
Because it's not politically tenable.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:16 am to MJackson
In theory, yes, Congress could pass a law that would essentially protect the ability to have an abortion. This law would then preempt any contrary state laws that stand in the way of the goals the federal law seeks to accomplish. Practically, it would be hard to accomplish as long as the filibuster still exists.
Of course, the federal law itself would be challenged in the federal courts, and I would imagine the Supreme Court would ultimately be tasked with deciding on multiple constitutional issues that would come with such a law.
Source: I'm a lawyer.
Of course, the federal law itself would be challenged in the federal courts, and I would imagine the Supreme Court would ultimately be tasked with deciding on multiple constitutional issues that would come with such a law.
Source: I'm a lawyer.
This post was edited on 7/1/22 at 9:17 am
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:18 am to MJackson
They would have to make a new amendment, good luck with that
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:19 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
In theory, yes, Congress could pass a law that would essentially protect the ability to have an abortion. This law would then preempt any contrary state laws that stand in the way of the goals the federal law seeks to accomplish.
Are there any other non-constitutionally protected acts that the federal government has made it illegal for states to declare illegal?
I just can't figure out how that would effectively work.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Legally? Yes
Politically? No
Regardless of one's opinion on abortion, this should be the guiding law. Why is it in a nation known for some of the highest degrees of representative leadership that we can have rules that go against the political mandate?
Also, is it really politically infeasible? The left has the white house, congress, and a few rinos.
Is it that the left would rather keep women angry and at the polls for another generation?
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:20 am to TerryDawg03
quote:
I would think that a constitutional amendment would be required. Good luck with that.
Abortion is not in the Constitution, so that may have some merit.
9th and 10th amendments seem in play. RvW was a stretch to begin with and a bastardization of the 14th amendment.
States are completely within their rights now to create any abortion law they want.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:21 am to MJackson
If you can use the Commerce Clause to regulate who can and can't eat at a lunch counter in the South,
you can pretty much regulate anything.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:22 am to Lou Pai
quote:
Ben Shapiro was saying it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Not clear as to why.
For the same reason SCOTUS just overturned RvW, it is a right not listed in the Constitution, therefore, that is a power left to the states to decide. Any law the Congress passes would be immediately struck down for exactly that reason. If they were somehow to draft and pass a new amendment that would be allowable, but they aren't going that route because they know it is impossible
Posted on 7/1/22 at 9:22 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If you can use the Commerce Clause to regulate who can and can't eat at a lunch counter in the South,
Ultimately, that's based on protecting explicit "Constitutional Rights," though.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News