re: Can’t congress pass a law making abortion legal nationwide?

They did the Civil Rights Act so I don't see why not.

quote:

---

It’s the entire basis for the holding.

---

No it's not.

This was about a state law and precedent around a judicially-created "right".

In what way does that apply to federal legislation?

quote:

---

I am not all the way sure that Congress used the Commerce Clause to regulate discrimination. My recollection from Con Law II (an area which is not my specialty so I’m looking back some years) is that Congress used the 14th amendment itself.

---

Uh, no. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel. It's specifically about ICC providing authority for the CRA. Here is a quote:

quote:

---

In framing Title II of this Act Congress was dealing with what it considered a moral problem. But that fact does not detract from the overwhelming evidence of the disruptive effect that racial discrimination has had on commercial intercourse. It was this burden which empowered Congress to enact appropriate legislation, and, given this basis for the exercise of its power, Congress was not restricted by the fact that the particular obstruction to interstate commerce with which it was dealing was also deemed a moral and social wrong.

---

quote:

---

There is no enumerated power that permits the Congress the authority to regulate abortions

---

What enumerated right permits Congress the authority to regulate civil rights?

quote:

---

What enumerated right permits Congress the authority to regulate civil rights?

---

None

I agree with you that the commerce clause has been stretched to the point it should break, so if you’re right, and that is the basis for public accommodations laws, Congress didn’t have the authority to pass public accommodations laws when they did. I think public accommodations laws are probably a good idea (particularly considering the Jim Crow madness they were addressing) but again, good idea doesn’t mean a constitutional authority exists.

I don’t believe that the commerce clause (if I’m incorrect on the public accommodations law) should be a basis for “regulating” civil rights - because civil rights themselves mean rights you and I own, so the federal government needs to back out of the topic and is entitled to no opinion on it.

If State laws permitting discrimination existed in sex/race, etc. in public accommodations existed, they would have to survive strict scrutiny to apply. E.g. Brown v. Board of Education. Jim Crow laws can’t survive strict scrutiny and should be struck down by the SCOTUS as a violation of substantive due process pursuant to the language of the 14A (we’re entitled to equal protection under the law - aka substantive due process).

By contrast to the substantive right to enjoy equal protections under the law, there is no substantive right to Abortions. Leftist morons treat it like the 1A/2A, which are examples of substantive rights. Despite that they abortions aren’t civil rights guaranteed by the constitution, ppl are free to have them unless restrained by the states. The states may limit abortions in any way they want, including outright bans, to restrictions by trimester, without running afoul of the Federal Constitution.

By contrast, the Federal Government has no authority to limit abortions enumerated in the constitution, and no authority to guarantee them.

In addition, I don’t think that the commerce clause would apply bc traditionally public health and safety powers, believe it or not after the covid shitshow, rests with the states. Thats why Trump let the states decide - and why Whitmer was a psycho and Desantis was awesome. Different government approaches. If these abortion bitches are really sincere, and it’s about health then Michigan is free to abort away, and Florida can limit them however they please. Congress can have no opinion.

quote:

---

What enumerated right permits Congress the authority to regulate civil rights?

---

you already answered

SCOTUS hung that all on the hook of the commerce clause.

Yes, but they can't make states make it legal.

Think about pot. Congress could legalize it, but states ate not required to.

Same as emission standards for cars, California's are more strict than national.

As long as abortion restrictions are in the criminal code, it's far less likely that a national law will void a state law.

quote:

---

If not a direct law, they can tie federal funding of health-related spending (like Medicaid) to abortion laws. That would almost assuredly pass constitutional muster.

---

Sounds about right for this admin, cut off medical care to the elderly and poor unless the state allows killing.

Just what they did with the schools, threatened to cut off breakfast and lunch programs for poor blacks if they did not build gay bathrooms.

quote:

---

Also, this is ignoring Congress's ability to withhold medically-related federal funding from states who enact certain abortion restrictions. What would prevent Congress from doing that?

---

Nothing.

But using federal funding as a cudgel only makes sense as long as “your side” has power.

The pendulum is not stationary.

quote:

---

Can’t congress pass a law making abortion legal nationwide?

---

Yes.
Civil Rights would be the appropriate packaging.

Which brings us round to the issue of the 3 post-RvW Democrat Congressional Supermajorities where the issue could have been legislatively ensconced, and wasn't.