Abortion, for instance, was not probably something that was at the top of mind in 1776. Had it been, there might have been an amendment stipulating that abortion rights would be federally guaranteed. Or federally prohibited. And if it were considered so important by so many, it could be an amendment now.

#20 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

If women had power abortion would be in the first amendment

FFS Originalism is about the worst possible concept of jurisprudence there could possibly be.

Knowledge expands with time.

Societies change with time.

Technology radically changes our relationship with each other, society, life itself over time.

A document purporting to represent people MUST be dynamic to protect and expand rights.

Even the smartest person in 1782 would have no concept of the internet, or vaccines or education, or LGBTQ people or the workings of the human brain or the limits of resources or a thousand other factors.

To base current rights on the condition of people in 1782 makes people's current rights conditional, that is by definition. Women had few rights PoC none. To base the current rights on those makes women and PoC inherently second class citizens with fewer rights than white males.

The Constitution doesn't evolve. Laws don't evolve. They remain in place until they are deliberately changed through an established process.

#36 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Which is nonsense and no way to run anything, anywhere anytime.

"or LGBTQ people"
They had those in 1782.
They had those in 1782 BC.
LGBTQ have always been part of humanity.

#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Correct, to clarify, I meant, progressive understanding and acceptance of LGBTQ in a modern context.

You won't answer this, but I'll waste space on the internet by asking again.

What authority does Congress have to protect the right to abortion that this SC will recognize?

Please be specific as to the mechanism in the Constitution that would give them the power.

Please keep in mind that Dobbs specifically stated access to abortion is not a right.

So, you're not going to answer the question.

First, this is MY opinion, I am not repeating what I have read, like you do.

Yes, congress can do anything, that does not mean it will be constitutional.

You cannot identify a power, because the power does not exist.

Murder is a state crime (under most situations). Congress could not pass an assisted suicide law, unless they identified that as a right. In the same way they couldn't outlaw it.

Congress CAN effectively ban abortion nationwide through regulating COMMERCE between states, i.e. one of their enumerated powers. In fact, that is likely where they will try to ban it should republicans control congress-of course ------- may even try to tell the FDA to rescind it's approval of Mifepristone (we'll see how that plays out-hopefully not).
There are some dual use issues with abortion devices.

The Mifepristone case only failed because the plaintiff had no standing. Some of the states are preparing lawsuits that will claim they are injured by FDA's approval of Mifepristone because that allows their citizens to get around the ban. How do you think this SC will rule?

There is simply now power in the Constitution for Congress to protect something like abortion, unless it is a right. Congress (under the 14th) has the authority to protect rights from state infringement. the SC said abortion is not a right.

It is clear you don't understand.

Here are Congress' powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the -------- of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Where is their power to protect abortion?

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

{SNIP}

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Dobbs said abortion is neither a privilege nor an immunity.

Where oh where is the power?

For your further education:

The coming week will likely see the issuance of an opinion in the EMTALA case.

The EMTALA case involves a challenge by Idaho against EMTALA. EMTALA says a state MUST provide emergency abortion care if that hospital accepts federal funds. Idaho law says no abortions even in many emergency situations.

Supremacy SHOULD rule, but...

The case was not dismissed at the state level, at the district level or the appeals level and the SC took up the case and during oral arguments were looking for a way to permit Idaho to overrule federal law.

This will likely be a 5-4 decision in favor of Idaho. Again showing Congress cannot protect abortion.

The mere existence of this case puts the lie that congress can protect abortion

I've been told that Article I, Section 8 doesn't actually define Congress' powers and that "general welfare" is a catch-all for anything and everything.

#52 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I am still waiting for what you believe Congress' powers are.

The ------------ "I've been told..." is insufficient.

One may begin to think you don't have an answer.

Perhaps that is because you are a lying piece of ----.

#53. That's what I've been told by leftists over the years - every single time government exceeds its authority.

#54 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Since you have been told that "over the years" and "every single time", then you should have zero trouble posting a link to that happening, ever.

Of course, you won't, cause you can't, cause you are a lying piece of ----.

That is who you are.

#56. Article I, Section 8 spells it out quite clearly. The 10th relegates all powers not defined in Article I, Sectuon 8 to the states and the people.

So, you are now admitting that such a power does not exist.

You are arguing that FDR destroyed the relegation of power through his "over reaches".

Since this court has stated that abortion is not a right and thus a 10th Amendment issue, I ask the same question I asked several hours ago.

"What authority does Congress have to protect the right to abortion that this SC will recognize?"

You are now agreeing that Congress does not have that power. You are arguing that Congress should do it anyway based on a nebulous "general welfare" argument (though as an aside you don't provide any real examples of that). But, again.

"What authority does Congress have to protect the right to abortion that this SC will recognize?"

Are you arguing that this court would recognize a Congressional law, without any basis in the Constitution, that says abortion is allowed, say until viability?

Is that your argument? Because there is NO WAY this court would allow that.

So, if not...

What authority does Congress have to protect the right to abortion that this SC will recognize?

You won't answer it

Because you can't answer it

Because there is no answer that is correct.

You would know that, except you aren't too bright.

--------. The left for years has claimed general warfare and interstate commerce as catch-alls. You know it and I know it. You just choose to lie about it.
#58 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

So, if this is true "for years" You claim you know it.

So, please post anything, any reasonable link to something support it.

As you are presenting it, it should be easy to do.

#63. The first Nevadan mandate in ACA was argued under interstate commerce grounds. While Roberts upheld it he did so under the power to levy taxes. The left was quietly upset because it was the first time in a long time interstate commerce was limited by the courts. Look at Wickard. Filburn to see how far Commerce got twisted in order to expand federal power.

#65 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

ACA has a tax component

Does abortion have a tax component?

Nope, try again.

Face it, you aren't smart enough to understand.