The National Divorce

[zantax]

@FreeAndClear

@zantax

@toreyj01

@WuWei

@Orygun

Blue states don’t want any fundamental departure from the Roe framework of 50 years ago. Red states do.

Red states want it for their states.

Progs demand it nationally.

Can you see the difference?

Red States want it for now, the instant they gain control of both houses and the Presidency they will codify it nationally and ban all abortions. And every Conservative talking about state’s rights will celebrate this complete hypocrisy.

Umm no, they may try but this court would strike it down. When they ruled it wasn’t a federal matter, that applies to the federal legislature as well. If it isn’t to be found in the constitution then there can obviously be no enumerated federal power to enter into the states and regulate it.

They never ruled that it wasn’t a federal matter.

Umm yes they did, not to be found in the constitution, means not a federal matter.

[FreeAndClear]

No the right to abortion isn’t to be found. They never said that regulation of abortion isn’t a federal matter.

[zantax]

@FreeAndClear

No the right to abortion isn’t to be found. They never said that regulation of abortion isn’t a federal matter.

Ok guess I have to walk you through it. Federal powers are only granted through enumerated powers listed in the constitution. If abortion isn’t to be found in the constitution there can obviously be no enumerated power to enter into the states and regulate it.

[FreeAndClear]

@zantax

@FreeAndClear

No the right to abortion isn’t to be found. They never said that regulation of abortion isn’t a federal matter.

Ok guess I have to walk you through it. Federal powers are only granted through enumerated powers listed in the constitution. If abortion isn’t to be found in the constitution there can obviously be no enumerated power to enter into the states and regulate it.

Except for all the powers that have been extended over the years like the interstate commerce clause and the welfare clause.

Now go ahead walk me through how wrong that is….

[biggestal99]

@WuWei

No, it is an imposition of values.

i dont see how not allowing sodomy laws in texas, imposes values on texas sodomy is a victimless crime.

if you dont like sodomy dont do it.

Allan

[zantax]

@FreeAndClear

@zantax

@FreeAndClear

No the right to abortion isn’t to be found. They never said that regulation of abortion isn’t a federal matter.

Ok guess I have to walk you through it. Federal powers are only granted through enumerated powers listed in the constitution. If abortion isn’t to be found in the constitution there can obviously be no enumerated power to enter into the states and regulate it.

Except for all the powers that have been extended over the years like the interstate commerce clause and the welfare clause.

Now go ahead walk me through how wrong that is….

Good luck trying the commerce clause on this with this court. And no way on the general welfare clause which granted zero additional powers to the fed. Won’t remotely fly with this court.

[FreeAndClear]

So let’s back up. No nothing in their decision prohibits the regulation of abortion on a federal level. All you have is prescience.

[zantax]

@FreeAndClear

So let’s back up. No nothing in their decision prohibits the regulation of abortion on a federal level. All you have is prescience.

Again, if abortion is nowhere to be found in the constitution there can obviously be no enumerated power to regulate it federally.

[FreeAndClear]

Let me know how a law that prohibits travel from one state to another in order to engage in an act that kills a human being is in violation of the federal governments power to regulate interstate “commerce”

Walk me through it even. Thanks in advance.

[zantax]

from How the Supreme Court Could Approach Federal Laws Upholding—or Banning—Abortion | The New Yorker

What about flipping it the other way? It doesn’t seem like Democrats anytime soon are going to get rid of the filibuster and codify a bill into law that protects the right to abortion, but how do you think this Court might look at such a law? We’ve been hearing for a long time from conservatives that the importance of getting rid of Roe was to bring this power back to the people and their legislators. I’m curious how you think a conservative Court might view a law codifying Roe.

I’m extremely skeptical that they would allow Congress to codify a federal right to abortion. They are much more likely to conclude that such a statute exceeds Congress’s powers because they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. So that possible basis for the law goes out, and that leaves the Commerce Clause. Given how easy it has been for [the Court] to find ways to strike down statutes that they don’t like under the Commerce Clause—like in N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, on the Affordable Care Act—I’m not at all confident that they would say, “Yes, Congress has the authority to codify Roe or the right to an abortion.”

Expert weighs in.

[FreeAndClear]

Guy i agree with weighs in

Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan and a co-host of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast.

[zantax]

@FreeAndClear

Let me know how a law that prohibits travel from one state to another in order to engage in an act that kills a human being is in violation of the federal governments power to regulate interstate “commerce”

Walk me through it even. Thanks in advance.

That isn’t the same as restricting it in state. Which is what we were talking about. There very well may be problems doing that.

[FreeAndClear]

@zantax

@FreeAndClear

Let me know how a law that prohibits travel from one state to another in order to engage in an act that kills a human being is in violation of the federal governments power to regulate interstate “commerce”

Walk me through it even. Thanks in advance.

That isn’t the same as restricting it in state. Which is what we were talking about. There very well may be problems doing that.

No we weren’t. We were talking about national regulation of abortion.

If you were talking about in state then obviously we weee on different wavelengths

[zantax]

@FreeAndClear

Guy i agree with weighs in

Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan and a co-host of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast.

Ok, let’s try CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/opinions/codifying-roe-scotus-abortion-nourse/index.html

[Smyrna]

@biggestal99

i dont see how not allowing sodomy laws in texas, imposes values on texas sodomy is a victimless crime.

if you dont like sodomy dont do it.

Allan

^^^^^^^^ lib critical thinking on display ^^^^^^^^^^^^

[FreeAndClear]

Oh a national right is a bad idea too. Again i was talking about regulation.

[NJBob]

Paid for primarily by the maker (blue) states.

[WuWei]

Look How Opinion Shifts On Abortion When Polls Reject Leftist Framing

Sixty-eight percent of participants thought a fetus is a human life once it has a heartbeat at six weeks. And once they were reminded a fetus has a unique DNA blueprint as soon as sperm meets egg, a whopping 66 percent said a fetus is a human life at conception. After answering questions about the humanity of unborn children, 55 percent of respondents said abortions should be prohibited between 0 and 6 weeks gestation.

Maybe that’s why there’s no amendment

[biggestal99]

from the article.

“But when participants learned Roe allowed for late-term abortions……”

which are rare. i also oppose late term abortions.

but i still endorse a women right to choose in the first trimester.

why should they have self determination rights in the first trimester?

nobody has given a clear reason why that makes sense to me.

Allan

[conan]

Still whining 5 years later…