- 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’t congress pass a law making abortion legal nationwide?
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:48 am to udtiger
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:48 am to udtiger
quote:
Wanna tell me the argument that would be advanced against that?
The point is that just because states try to avoid federal regulation by making it a criminal act doesn't really matter.
Again, as posted earlier, see: Jim Crow.
1
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why?
I'll give an example: can states use the death penalty for rape?
To the extent you believe the ICC is the vehicle by which Congress could overrule a state on this, this is the overly expansive Wickard v. Filburn application, which was abrogated in Sebelius.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:49 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
they just ruled that Roe was unconstitutional, isn’t under the decree of the Federal Government by the Constitution
Wrong way to summarize it.
The right to abortion was improperly created by one branch of the federal government and that power was taken away from that branch.
Nothing about the opinion yesterday says it's outside of any federal regulation. In fact, the Kavanaugh quote I posted earlier in this thread specifically references an avenue for a Congressional law to codify Roe.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The point is that just because states try to avoid federal regulation by making it a criminal act doesn't really matter.
Again, as posted earlier, see: Jim Crow
Read Morrison.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:51 am to udtiger
quote:
this is the overly expansive Wickard v. Filburn application, which was abrogated in Sebelius.
No it wasn't. Sebelius really didn't even touch on the ICC issue and primarily relied on the taxing power of fedgov.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
this is the overly expansive Wickard v. Filburn application, which was abrogated in Sebelius.
No it wasn't. Sebelius really didn't even touch on the ICC issue and primarily relied on the taxing power of fedgov
Oh for frick's sake.
A huge part of Robert's opinion was devoted to it.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:52 am to SlowFlowPro
I saw all that, but the Feds could say it’s legal, but then States would set limits, like Ms tried at 15 weeks, which was the Dobbs complaint. We’d be back to square one, which this ruling just struck down….. going to need a different court iMO
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:53 am to udtiger
quote:
Read Morrison
Again, not really applicable.
Does abortion use instruments that are part of the current definition of IC? Yes
Does violence against women? Not usually. Also violence isn't "Economic in nature". Abortions clearly are.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the Kavanaugh quote I posted earlier in this thread specifically references an avenue for a Congressional law to codify Roe.
That has been a source of wrath against Roe from the beginning. People felt they were cheated out of their democratic say to debate the issue in the halls of Congress.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:53 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
We’d be back to square one
Basically, but with real authority and not judicially-created, magical "rights". That was the point of the ruling.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:55 am to udtiger
quote:
A huge part of Robert's opinion was devoted to it.
Quote me where he abrogated ICC power of Congress.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but with real authority and not judicially-created, magical "rights"
yes, but as you pointed out, even if Congress acts on this,
that would be based on Commerce Clause Magic.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A huge part of Robert's opinion was devoted to it.
Quote me where he abrogated ICC power of Congress
5-4 ruled that Obamacare was not proper under "necessary and proper/commerce clause" authority.
A huge part of Robert's opinion was devoted to it.
Quote me where he abrogated ICC power of Congress
5-4 ruled that Obamacare was not proper under "necessary and proper/commerce clause" authority.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:58 am to TrueTiger
quote:
even if Congress acts on this,
that would be based on Commerce Clause Magic.
Or via funding, which is the more likely route.
States will bend the knee for Medicaid dollars.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:58 am to Dawgfanman
quote:Pragmatically, they did not had the votes. They had 60 in the Senate only briefly in the late 1970s, and back then a good number of the Southern Dem Senators would not have supported it.
Can’t congress pass a law making abortion legal nationwide?
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or via funding, which is the more likely route.
States will bend the knee for Medicaid dollars
Agreed.
I'd love to see a state sack up and say "frick you" and eliminate Medicaid.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 8:00 am to anc
quote:Two terms, 45 years ago.
even when Dems had the House and 60+ in the Senate.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or via funding, which is the more likely route.
agree, that is the other trick bag that we the people have allowed those bastards to hang over our heads.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 8:01 am to udtiger
quote:
5-4 ruled that Obamacare was not proper under "necessary and proper/commerce clause" authority.
No, a conglomeration of opinions decided that the individual mandate may not be part of the CC powers, but that it was part of the taxing powers.
There wasn't an abrogation of ICC power. The mandate was inaction and the court said that "economic activity" had to be action.
quote:
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
How does this apply to abortions, where someone has to take a step towards the economic activity?
Posted on 6/25/22 at 8:02 am to Dawgfanman
quote:Now, yes, that is a possibility. But not for 48 of the last 50 years.
probably gut some of the commerce clause overreach too.quote:
I think this is probably why they don’t
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News