It's smart for them in my opinion. The Republicans have a structural advantage in the Senate. They will likely retake the Senate and keep it for most of the time. Ergo, Democrats will want to have the filibuster around rather than not.
But they also need to show their base that they at least tried to codify Roe.
Does anyone have the legal chops to explain to me how codifyiing Roe or an abortion ban does not violate federalism, btw? I never see anyone say that it would, but it seems pretty open-and-shut to me.
Does anyone have the legal chops to explain to me how codifyiing Roe or an abortion ban does not violate federalism, btw? I never see anyone say that it would, but it seems pretty open-and-shut to me.
Ben Shapiro has been making this argument pretty strenuously lately, but it's not correct under the current law. Current controlling law is the bullshit Raich case, which held that the federal government could override state weed legalization laws under the interstate commerce clause, even when the weed in question (growing it for home use) was non-commercial and non-intrastate, because it might AFFECT interstate commerce somehow. (because if you didn't grow weed, you might buy it, and the seller might have obtained it from out of state)
Under that logic, the federal government's power is unlimited, since EVERYTHING could be argued to somehow affect interstate commerce. Federalism is already dead under Raich.
Thomas dissented to Raich, but it was 6-3 and even Scalia concurred with the majority, writing "Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so "could … undercut" its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between "what is truly national and what is truly local."" Of course since ANYTHING could arguably undercut federal regulation, that line is, in fact obliterated.
So Raich would have to be overruled 1st before a federal abortion ban could be attacked. We already have an indication that Thomas does not have the votes for that, because in STANDING AKIMBO, LLC v. UNITED STATES Thomas tried to overturn Raich, and he couldn't even get 4 votes for review.
In addition to that, the Republicans already passed the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which the conservatives on the Court, including Thomas, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. Thomas weaseled around the commerce clause issue by saying that since the parties didn't bring it up, he didn't have to consider it, which is bullshit: Thomas knows that he has an obligation to enforce the Constitution and its limitations on Congress whether the party challenging the law makes the argument or not. The Constitution does not disappear because a party negligently fails to make an argument. The liberals, being ideological jackasses, didn't want to mention the commerce clause anyway (libs WANT unlimited federal power and hate federalism) and dissented solely based on Roe/Casey.
Naw, Lincoln was very despotic. A lot of people don’t get just how badly the civil war destroyed states rights because it was considered justifiable to end slavery. Just as the first amendment was ripped open because it was considered justifiable to end “racism”.
But what are the examples of his despotism? I find him rather well-behaved as a leader of a country in civil war. For example, I would not be holding elections, especially ones that I expect to lose.
If the civil war destroyed states' rights, how did states manage to 'redeem' themselves and even de facto abrogate the Reconstruction amendments?
You mean like intentionally ceding bases strategically to reinforce fort Sumter after South Carolina seceded? How about ordering a fleet of warships to breach Carolinas waters to resupply and maintain fort Sumter? How about refusing to peacefully surrender and instead increasing arms and weaponry in the fort. How about going back in to take Charleston harbor after fort Sumter was surrendered? Every single attempt at peaceful separation was denied by Lincoln.
To go off of the reconstruction aspect of what you said, I recommend researching the election of 1876. It has a lot of the wacky antics and controversy that 2020 had, but with both parties making shady backroom deals to decide the president in exchange for political favors like removing aspects of reconstruction. Not that they would ever do that again...
If the civil war destroyed states' rights, how did states manage to 'redeem' themselves and even de facto abrogate the Reconstruction amendments?
The South didn't abrogate anything. It weakened and eroded some things in some ways since the southerners were willing to constantly attack them, while the Northern states lacked the same degree of political will to perpetually fight back. So over time, the South was able to carve out compromise solutions like segregation that the North simply wasn't willing to "go to war" over. "separate but equal" obeys the letter of the law, and was only overturned much later based on the argument that it wasn't really equal after all.
The Civil War did massively destroy states rights in many ways, because it was the central question of the war: are states the ultimate authority, or the federal government? And the answer was the feds. So federal power massively expanded after the civil war, and was pretty much unchecked. Even now, only a small number of people like Thomas are even trying to hold back the feds in any meaningful way. Judge Roberts upheld Obamacare.
I would point to the nationalization of the "national guard" aka state militias:
Throughout the 19th century the Regular U.S. Army was small, and the state militias provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, and the Spanish–American War. With the Militia Act of 1903, the militia was more organized and the name "National Guard" recommended. In 1908, the prohibition on National Guard units serving overseas was dropped. This resulted in constitutional debates within the U.S. government surrounding the legality of the use of the National Guard overseas, culminating in 1912 when U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham declared the 1908 amendment to be unconstitutional. The National Defense Act of 1916 contained a provision whereby the president could discharge National Guard members from the militia and draft them into the Army in the event of a war, allowing for their use overseas. This resulted in former National Guard members being discharged from the Army entirely (also losing their status as state troops) when they left service, so the 1920 amendments to the act defined the National Guard's dual role as a state and federal reserve force; the "National Guard while in the service of the United States" as a component of the Army of the United States could be ordered to active duty by the president, be deployed overseas if they so wished, and the Guardsmen would then revert to their status as state troops. The dual state and federal status proved confusing, so in 1933, the National Defense Act of 1916 was amended again. It finally severed the National Guard's traditional connection with the militia clause of the Constitution, providing for a new component called the "National Guard of the United States" that was to be a reserve component of the Army of the United States at all times.
Basically, the next time the US faced a significant war after the Civil War (WW1), the feds just basically federalized the national guard, and finally in 1933 dispensed with the charade of the national guard being anything other than a purely federal force.
Habeas corpus? I mean, as far as constitutional violations go, "I'm suspending this without authority because Congress is not in session" ranks rather low.
And his handling of the initial secession of South Carolina was pretty much an egging on of violence.
That is just smart politics. He baited the enemy into firing first and galvanizing patriotic opinion in the North. If anyone made a mistake there, it's Davis for letting himself be baited like that.
Lincoln also was not extraordinary in what he did. Even James Buchanan was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, and in fact, he delayed a good deal less before so doing.
Lincoln offered to give up Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention would disband without seceding. Seems incredible to me (a permanent concession for a temporary one), but Lincoln said: "A fort for a state is good business."
His Emancipation Proclamation is an executive overreach that most forgive because slavery bad.
I'd say it can certainly be justified as a war measure. It's certainly no violation of federalism.
And he helped expand the power of the federal government and reduced the powers of the individual states.
In what ways specifically?
(Disclaimer: I'm not ideologically committed to defending Lincoln, though I do find him a rather admirable character, and I'm also not obsessed with slavery as a European. I just see a lot of groundless criticisms of Lincoln)
Really? It's entirely predictable that Congressional Dems weren't going to pass federal law legalizing abortion. They've had many chances (usually better for them than the current Congress) since Roe and never did.
I don't think they - or GOP - care about anything except their own power and getting into office. The issue is that if they do nothing, it might hamper their ability to get into office.
The only reason Roe even happened is because of the impossibility of a law being enacted to federalize abortion by traditional means. Using the same logic you could simply legalize anything by Fiat, because you wrote a law. Thats anti democratic at the outset. Not saying retarded sociopaths won’t try, but there is no legal avenue to support the method.
The only reason Roe even happened is because of the impossibility of a law being enacted to federalize abortion by traditional means.
I don't think you can say this. Abortion was illegal in nearly all states. It would not have passed. But point taken, in that you can get stuff done by courts that Congress would not (IMO) have the power to pass.
What I'm arguing here is that the Democrats, who do believe they can pass this law, probably didn't because it would splinter their coalition. The original codification went further than Roe, because otherwise there would be no point in passing it. They were trying to pass it to remove restrictions on abortion passed by states.
Now it's arguably more urgent from their POV. If they don't at least try, their base will regard themselves as useful idiots.
This entire train of logic circumvents discussion of the reality here: The supreme court’s judgement is in their favor. They never cared about the social or moral issue. They saw how polarizing it was. It obliterates all of their sins. They beat this horse every election for 40 years. It turns elections into a single issue, which they love. It fell away for a short while, but attempts to replace that wedge have failed to materialize anything. Democrats are Masturbating with glee over this. Joe biden could vomit in the mouth of a retarded american indian baby while he finger fucks it and it wouldn’t change a thing. Now once again, you must vote democrat or you are a backwoods sister fucking racist fundamentalist christian loony that wants women locked in the kitchen as slaves of a baby factory. You wait and see.
Arizona is the geopolitical equivalent of some faggot rubbing crystals to cure the venereal disease it caught fucking dogs that other fags already fucked.
It's smart for them in my opinion. The Republicans have a structural advantage in the Senate. They will likely retake the Senate and keep it for most of the time. Ergo, Democrats will want to have the filibuster around rather than not.
But they also need to show their base that they at least tried to codify Roe.
Does anyone have the legal chops to explain to me how codifyiing Roe or an abortion ban does not violate federalism, btw? I never see anyone say that it would, but it seems pretty open-and-shut to me.
Ben Shapiro has been making this argument pretty strenuously lately, but it's not correct under the current law. Current controlling law is the bullshit Raich case, which held that the federal government could override state weed legalization laws under the interstate commerce clause, even when the weed in question (growing it for home use) was non-commercial and non-intrastate, because it might AFFECT interstate commerce somehow. (because if you didn't grow weed, you might buy it, and the seller might have obtained it from out of state)
Under that logic, the federal government's power is unlimited, since EVERYTHING could be argued to somehow affect interstate commerce. Federalism is already dead under Raich.
Thomas dissented to Raich, but it was 6-3 and even Scalia concurred with the majority, writing "Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so "could … undercut" its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between "what is truly national and what is truly local."" Of course since ANYTHING could arguably undercut federal regulation, that line is, in fact obliterated.
So Raich would have to be overruled 1st before a federal abortion ban could be attacked. We already have an indication that Thomas does not have the votes for that, because in STANDING AKIMBO, LLC v. UNITED STATES Thomas tried to overturn Raich, and he couldn't even get 4 votes for review.
In addition to that, the Republicans already passed the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which the conservatives on the Court, including Thomas, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. Thomas weaseled around the commerce clause issue by saying that since the parties didn't bring it up, he didn't have to consider it, which is bullshit: Thomas knows that he has an obligation to enforce the Constitution and its limitations on Congress whether the party challenging the law makes the argument or not. The Constitution does not disappear because a party negligently fails to make an argument. The liberals, being ideological jackasses, didn't want to mention the commerce clause anyway (libs WANT unlimited federal power and hate federalism) and dissented solely based on Roe/Casey.
Did Lincoln violate federalism?
Any particular examples? I'm pretty sure he was better behaved than Wilson.
Naw, Lincoln was very despotic. A lot of people don’t get just how badly the civil war destroyed states rights because it was considered justifiable to end slavery. Just as the first amendment was ripped open because it was considered justifiable to end “racism”.
But what are the examples of his despotism? I find him rather well-behaved as a leader of a country in civil war. For example, I would not be holding elections, especially ones that I expect to lose.
If the civil war destroyed states' rights, how did states manage to 'redeem' themselves and even de facto abrogate the Reconstruction amendments?
You mean like intentionally ceding bases strategically to reinforce fort Sumter after South Carolina seceded? How about ordering a fleet of warships to breach Carolinas waters to resupply and maintain fort Sumter? How about refusing to peacefully surrender and instead increasing arms and weaponry in the fort. How about going back in to take Charleston harbor after fort Sumter was surrendered? Every single attempt at peaceful separation was denied by Lincoln.
To go off of the reconstruction aspect of what you said, I recommend researching the election of 1876. It has a lot of the wacky antics and controversy that 2020 had, but with both parties making shady backroom deals to decide the president in exchange for political favors like removing aspects of reconstruction. Not that they would ever do that again...
The South didn't abrogate anything. It weakened and eroded some things in some ways since the southerners were willing to constantly attack them, while the Northern states lacked the same degree of political will to perpetually fight back. So over time, the South was able to carve out compromise solutions like segregation that the North simply wasn't willing to "go to war" over. "separate but equal" obeys the letter of the law, and was only overturned much later based on the argument that it wasn't really equal after all.
The Civil War did massively destroy states rights in many ways, because it was the central question of the war: are states the ultimate authority, or the federal government? And the answer was the feds. So federal power massively expanded after the civil war, and was pretty much unchecked. Even now, only a small number of people like Thomas are even trying to hold back the feds in any meaningful way. Judge Roberts upheld Obamacare.
I would point to the nationalization of the "national guard" aka state militias:
Basically, the next time the US faced a significant war after the Civil War (WW1), the feds just basically federalized the national guard, and finally in 1933 dispensed with the charade of the national guard being anything other than a purely federal force.
No idea who Wilson James is. Woodrow Wilson.
Habeas corpus? I mean, as far as constitutional violations go, "I'm suspending this without authority because Congress is not in session" ranks rather low.
That is just smart politics. He baited the enemy into firing first and galvanizing patriotic opinion in the North. If anyone made a mistake there, it's Davis for letting himself be baited like that.
Lincoln also was not extraordinary in what he did. Even James Buchanan was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, and in fact, he delayed a good deal less before so doing.
Lincoln offered to give up Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention would disband without seceding. Seems incredible to me (a permanent concession for a temporary one), but Lincoln said: "A fort for a state is good business."
I'd say it can certainly be justified as a war measure. It's certainly no violation of federalism.
In what ways specifically?
(Disclaimer: I'm not ideologically committed to defending Lincoln, though I do find him a rather admirable character, and I'm also not obsessed with slavery as a European. I just see a lot of groundless criticisms of Lincoln)
Really? It's entirely predictable that Congressional Dems weren't going to pass federal law legalizing abortion. They've had many chances (usually better for them than the current Congress) since Roe and never did.
It makes more sense now, because now it will actually have an effect.
They don't care though. It's like Republicans with Obamacare or immigration. They want to run on the issue, not fix it.
I don't think they - or GOP - care about anything except their own power and getting into office. The issue is that if they do nothing, it might hamper their ability to get into office.
Eventually it might. It's still a lot of easier for them to do nothing, though.
The only reason Roe even happened is because of the impossibility of a law being enacted to federalize abortion by traditional means. Using the same logic you could simply legalize anything by Fiat, because you wrote a law. Thats anti democratic at the outset. Not saying retarded sociopaths won’t try, but there is no legal avenue to support the method.
I don't think you can say this. Abortion was illegal in nearly all states. It would not have passed. But point taken, in that you can get stuff done by courts that Congress would not (IMO) have the power to pass.
What I'm arguing here is that the Democrats, who do believe they can pass this law, probably didn't because it would splinter their coalition. The original codification went further than Roe, because otherwise there would be no point in passing it. They were trying to pass it to remove restrictions on abortion passed by states.
Now it's arguably more urgent from their POV. If they don't at least try, their base will regard themselves as useful idiots.
This entire train of logic circumvents discussion of the reality here: The supreme court’s judgement is in their favor. They never cared about the social or moral issue. They saw how polarizing it was. It obliterates all of their sins. They beat this horse every election for 40 years. It turns elections into a single issue, which they love. It fell away for a short while, but attempts to replace that wedge have failed to materialize anything. Democrats are Masturbating with glee over this. Joe biden could vomit in the mouth of a retarded american indian baby while he finger fucks it and it wouldn’t change a thing. Now once again, you must vote democrat or you are a backwoods sister fucking racist fundamentalist christian loony that wants women locked in the kitchen as slaves of a baby factory. You wait and see.
Wow, are you Razorfist or did you just attend his academy? :)
He’s my son.
Maybe because not everything is about who is a woman and who is a feminist?
Arizona isn't nearly as conservative as some of the states where senators support nuking the filibuster.
Arizona is the geopolitical equivalent of some faggot rubbing crystals to cure the venereal disease it caught fucking dogs that other fags already fucked.
Arizona Postcard
Yup. Leftists hate them like we hate Romney.