[quote=“Supreme_War_Pig, post:3374, topic:241935”]
I don’t foresee that happening, but I’m one of the few that have no problem with it. Purposely take a life , forfeit yours. Oklahoma has provisions for rape , incest and the life of the mother.
If killing innocent unborn children isn’t wrong, then why is killing a 2 month old wrong for the same reasons? They will get their day in court and if they can convince a jury of their peers they shouldn’t be punished …
Pixels from your own keyboard:
Let Oklahoma be Oklahoma. Not your circus. Not your monkeys. Not worth your panic.
Cool.
And those who claim babies born outside of planning post Roe v Wade will grow up miserable & impoverished must really detest examples like Lebron James—mom raised him by herself—and recently deceased Ray Liotta, God rest his soul.
Ray Liotta’s unwed mom didn’t pursue him with the coat hanger leftists & feminists say will make a comeback. She placed him for adoption and Alfred and Mary Liotta adopted him. One of his early memories was visiting an orphanage and picking his sister Linda:
Interesting…
Red states have been demanding that big daddy federal government stay out of their business and make their own decisions regarding laws about abortions.
Can cities say no to the state government and decriminalize abortion?
…
The city of Austin is attempting to shield its residents from prosecution under a Texas law that would criminalize almost all abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned — the first push by a major city in a red state to try to circumvent state abortion policy.
And there we have it once again folks. Injecting political party divisiveness as interesting, rather than what our federal constitution commands, and especially so with regard to enforcing federalism, and the expressed intentions for which the Tenth Amendment was adopted.
You apparently have a problem with our Constitution’s big-tent system in which the States, and people therein, get to determine the rules which concern the “. . . lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
JWK
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that is why control freaks detest federalism . . . it is an obstacle to controlling and subjugating the people completely.
So no- no to cities making decisions that skirt state law?
What does the protection of federalism require with respect to that question?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
Well I think in this case they won’t openly flout the state law. They simply will not put forth efforts to enforce it. Sort of a nullification by passivity.
I have no idea how that answers the question asked.
JWK
I think of it similar to drug decriminalization efforts. Something like heroin may be a schedule 1 drug and can lead to jail time for possession- but many cities have decided to stop enforcing that federal law by de-emphasizing it.
The question was, what does the protection of federalism require?
JWK
I’m not sure what you are getting at John- can you rephrase the question?
Are you referring to the tenth?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Did you miss what I wrote HERE:
“And there we have it once again folks. Injecting political party divisiveness as interesting, rather than what our federal constitution commands, and especially so with regard to enforcing federalism, and the expressed intentions for which the Tenth Amendment was adopted.”
Cities can do that, but good luck preventing the state from enforcing the state laws.
Sorry I did miss it- a little sleepy this morning.
Well just as Texas have done some workarounds on federal abortion laws (making it a civil lawsuit issue), Texan cities are finding ways to skirt state law. I just find that interesting. Not sure where it will go- litigation I’m sure.
Well I think there will be ways that Red States will make sure legal abortion is not an option and will shut down clinics, etc.
But I do wonder how they will stop mail order abortion pills, especially if cities don’t see a reason to enforce that law too closely.
Again- kind of like the war on drugs. If law enforcement doesn’t want to enforce some drug possession laws too intensely, how can that be shown to defy state or federal laws?
So now we return to the question asked:
What does the protection of federalism require?
JWK
That where the state makes laws, everyone in that state must obey.
