(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I'm not sure RoevWade could be codified on a federal level, because it is not interstate commerce.

If the Supreme Court strikes down federal legislation permitting/forbidding abortion, it won't likely be on those grounds. It's pretty easy to find a link to interstate commerce, with abortion for instance it is likely that some of the drugs and equipment used originate in states other than where they are being used. Abortion is also poised to become even more obviously linked to interstate commerce, as women in red states are forced to cross state lines to access reproductive healthcare in a blue state.

If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

“Accessing Reproductive healthcare”…

Did you mean tearing an infant limb from limb?

GTFOHWTS

(05-12-2022 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

It would actually be nice to see the Court put some teeth into the 10th Amendment.

There is merit to that, I think if this polarized country wants to continue as one we will need to see increased importance placed on the 10th Amendment.

(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I'm not sure RoevWade could be codified on a federal level, because it is not interstate commerce.

If the Supreme Court strikes down federal legislation permitting/forbidding abortion, it won't likely be on those grounds. It's pretty easy to find a link to interstate commerce, with abortion for instance it is likely that some of the drugs and equipment used originate in states other than where they are being used. Abortion is also poised to become even more obviously linked to interstate commerce, as women in red states are forced to cross state lines to access reproductive healthcare in a blue state.

If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

Reproductive healthcare? Seriously? Reproductive healthcare is readily available to any mother who wants it. What you are referring to is access to murder babies.

Cringe Kamala Video on Dem Abortion Vote Failure Leaves Some Important Things Out

(05-12-2022 09:52 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

It would actually be nice to see the Court put some teeth into the 10th Amendment.

There is merit to that, I think if this polarized country wants to continue as one we will need to see increased importance placed on the 10th Amendment.

ewe don't understand ... we want ewer arse to move to cali-ny-flowers where you belong...

yo' 'dingo ate yo' baby', the 10th is very clear ... whether ewe choose to accept such as written is yo' ___________

(05-12-2022 09:47 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I'm not sure RoevWade could be codified on a federal level, because it is not interstate commerce.

If the Supreme Court strikes down federal legislation permitting/forbidding abortion, it won't likely be on those grounds. It's pretty easy to find a link to interstate commerce, with abortion for instance it is likely that some of the drugs and equipment used originate in states other than where they are being used. Abortion is also poised to become even more obviously linked to interstate commerce, as women in red states are forced to cross state lines to access reproductive healthcare in a blue state.

If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

“Accessing Reproductive healthcare”…

Did you mean tearing an infant limb from limb?

GTFOHWTS

Yes, he just can't bring himself to say it.

(05-12-2022 09:52 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

It would actually be nice to see the Court put some teeth into the 10th Amendment.

There is merit to that, I think if this polarized country wants to continue as one we will need to see increased importance placed on the 10th Amendment.

I don't want to continue as one. We need to sit down and agree things just didn't work out and part ways. I was actually really hoping that the CA secession movement would've gotten more traction. That would've been a big step in the right direction.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

We need a model closer to the Articles of Confederation where the states have more power & whoever the President isn't as important. The country's too diverse (of opinion) & too vast to be unified. But they couldn't get that system to work unfortunately.

(05-12-2022 07:29 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:52 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 08:54 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  If the Court seriously intends to keep the federal government out of the field and leave abortion law up to each state alone, they will most likely do so using the 10th Amendment ("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").

It would actually be nice to see the Court put some teeth into the 10th Amendment.

There is merit to that, I think if this polarized country wants to continue as one we will need to see increased importance placed on the 10th Amendment.

I don't want to continue as one. We need to sit down and agree things just didn't work out and part ways. I was actually really hoping that the CA secession movement would've gotten more traction. That would've been a big step in the right direction.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

I think if I were a congress critter today, I would put a bill in the hopper authorizing a California referendum on secession.

(05-12-2022 11:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think if I were a congress critter today, I would put a bill in the hopper authorizing a California referendum on secession.

And we can all continue to pray for that earthquake

D's knew all along this wouldn't pass. It was merely political posturing for the midterms in that they now have on record everyone that said, "No". They'll use that in mass for midterms. Yes, they really are that desperate.

(05-13-2022 08:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:  D's knew all along this wouldn't pass. It was merely political posturing for the midterms in that they now have on record everyone that said, "No". They'll use that in mass for midterms. Yes, they really are that desperate.

Unfortunately, the bill wasnt about codifying abortion. It was guaranteeing late term abortion up to the moment or birth. That is objected to by over 70% of americans.

So Schumer just made his coalition put a yes vote on something most of america doesnt want. It was a hideous failure of strategy. He is trying to get his base riled up, and in the meantime threw the senators who are up for reelection and not from california into a fire in a year where they were already under immense pressure.

And then Manchin voted no, giving republicans the ability of saying there was bipartisan rejection of the bill, with no republicans voting for it.

That is an "impressive loss".