- 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
re: Can R v W be codified into law, post USSC decision?
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:35 am to AgSGT
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:35 am to AgSGT
quote:
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.
This is flawed logic.
The ruling had nothing to do with states' rights. It was squarely about federal judicial power.
2
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:36 am to TerryDawg03
A challenge will always arise on behalf of the voiceless. There is NO WAY to resolve this that is going to be beyond the basic Natural Rights protections afforded in The Constitution.
Not like this verbatim in The Constitution, but certainly infused throughout:
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" -- TJ
Not like this verbatim in The Constitution, but certainly infused throughout:
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" -- TJ
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:40 am to Wednesday
quote:
The commerce clause cannot be used to police private actors for issues that occur within a state.
This is literally not true.
The acts within a state just have to involve something that is a part of what they can construe to be "commerce"
quote:
Lopez v US;
Wasn't about commerce
quote:
Violence against Women
Wasn't about commerce
You have to argue that a medical procedure is not a part of commerce to get the same ruling as those cases.
quote:
A state could not prohibit a woman from traveling to Colorado
Via a right (Privileges and Immunities clause)
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The feds can also threaten states with too restrictive of abortion laws with the loss of federal funds, which is the more likely path.
We agree.
Dole v S Dakota
But it will be interesting to see how the thirsty baby killers get around the Federal Rule prohibiting federal funds to fund abortions.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:41 am to Wednesday
quote:
But it will be interesting to see how the thirsty baby killers get around the Federal Rule prohibiting federal funds to fund abortions.
The funds threatened don't have to be THAT related to pass muster. They'll just go with general Medicaid funding, 99.9% of which has nothing to do with abortion.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I am genuinely curious how many JD degrees hang on the walls of the posters insisting that Congress would be LEGALLY precluded from passing national abortion legislation.
flawed logic
I suspect that Wednesday would be the only one, and she is wishcasting what she WANTS (where I agree with her), rather than analyzing the current state of applicable jurisprudence.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:44 am to Floyd Dawg
Under what authority could Congress act? Commerce clause is only thing that comes to mind and SCOTUS neutered that with respect to criminal law (which abortion laws are) back in 2000 with the Morrison case.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:45 am to MJackson
Any attempt to make abortion a right would be unconstitutional. Congress can’t create rights unless through a constitutional amendment. They could enact Medicare for all and require coverage for abortion.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Legally? Yes
How? Didn't the USSC just say it's a state issue?
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:46 am to FlyingTiger1955
quote:
Any attempt to make abortion a right would be unconstitutional.
The DEMs saying it would be a "right" are just going for soundbites/PR. It would actually be federal regulation of...something.
I am sort of with YA in that the actual language of this putative law would be...interesting.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:46 am to MJackson
The LEFT is poking the bear, in a manner that will provoke a response!
You got beat LEFTYS! Deal with it!
You got beat LEFTYS! Deal with it!
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:47 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Didn't the USSC just say it's a state issue?
They did not, directly.
It's a "state issue" by default, because there was no federal legislation at the time of the ruling.
The decision was about restricting federal judicial power.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
The Democrats even with their supermajority haven’t been able to get their shite together on less controversial subject matter than this, so it’s pretty much a non-starter anyway.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:49 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:No.
Didn't the USSC just say it's a state issue?
SCOTUS said that the US Constitution does NOT guarantee a right to abortion. It did NOT indicate that Congress would be precluded from acting (on either side of the issue).
It could not have done so, because the case arose from questions regarding the constitutionality of STATE legislation. Even if the opinion did opine on "federal authority," it would have been mere dicta for this reason.
This post was edited on 7/1/22 at 10:52 am
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:50 am to davyjones
quote:Yep
The Democrats even with their supermajority haven’t been able to get their shite together on less controversial subject matter than this, so it’s pretty much a non-starter anyway.
quote:
Politically, No.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:53 am to Wednesday
quote:I was under the impression they were founded in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. No?
Those used the commerce clause.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 10:57 am to MJackson
The majority opinion in Dobbs seems to put this responsibility in the hands of the states. However, if you read the Kavanaugh concurring opinion, it seems he goes out of his way to say that either Congress or the states can codify Roe v. Wade.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I was under the impression they were founded in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. No?
Heart of Atlanta was a ruling on ICC application of the CRA
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:13 am to MJackson
No
It won’t happen because they won’t actually nuke the filibuster, but even if they did it would be thrown out as unconstitutional as soon as any of the immediate state lawsuits that would be filed reached the Supreme Court.
Congress has no authority to pass legislation mandating abortion be permitted in every state.
It won’t happen because they won’t actually nuke the filibuster, but even if they did it would be thrown out as unconstitutional as soon as any of the immediate state lawsuits that would be filed reached the Supreme Court.
Congress has no authority to pass legislation mandating abortion be permitted in every state.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Right.
Heart of Atlanta was a ruling on ICC application of the CRA
But this would be a different case. Heart of Atlanta was about forcing business compliance with the CRA, not about civil rights themselves. A case decided on civil rights basis would be about forcing legality in state law, not business compliance.
My point is, it seems any states with laws prohibiting remedy for a rape victim other than to carry the rapist's fetus to term are wide open to a civil rights suit independent of the Commerce Clause
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News