2022 House and Senate election

guy4321 said:
Why would that be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Multiple grounds. First, there's no constitutional text giving that power to Congress. Remember that the federal government is one of enumerated powers. Second, because that power is neither given to the federal government, nor denied to the states, it belongs to the states or to the people under the 10th Amendment. Third, if it requires medical providers to perform abortions without religious exemptions, it violates the First Amendment free exercise clause.
 
guy4321 said:
In that case, how do we have federal laws like Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?
Click to expand...

It's limited to physicians "in or affecting interstate commerce." However, I think that's a BS claim. Congress can technically do this, but if we're interpreting interstate commerce properly, this would be a very narrow class of abortions.
 
mchammer said:
Similar arguments applied to the Colorado cake baker case.
Click to expand...
Horn6721 said:
That is what I thought and he still was in court for years. So the Constitution was ignored.
Click to expand...

It would be similar to the cake baking case, but I think the case is stronger on the abortion scenario, because we're talking about a federal law. If we're strictly following the Constitution, a state isn't required to allow the free exercise of religion.
 
Mr D
Sorry to be so dense but if a state can ignore the Constitution what good is it ? What dictate allows a state to pick and choose which parts to follow.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's limited to physicians "in or affecting interstate commerce." However, I think that's a BS claim. Congress can technically do this, but if we're interpreting interstate commerce properly, this would be a very narrow class of abortions.
Click to expand...
An example for that law is a Californian can stay in California to abort during partial birth but that same Californian could not travel to New York to abort during birth?
 
guy4321 said:
An example for that law is a Californian can stay in California to abort during partial birth but that same Californian could not travel to New York to abort during birth?
Click to expand...

It's more like a NY doctor is advertising and arranging interstate travel for people seeking abortions. Remember, the law is aimed at the doctor.

But that isn't what the lawmakers had in mind. They had in mind pretty much anyone in the abortion business, because they're applying the ridiculously broad readings of the interstate commerce clause that the Supreme Court used to keep from shrinking down the federal Civil Rights Act.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Sorry to be so dense but if a state can ignore the Constitution what good is it ? What dictate allows a state to pick and choose which parts to follow.
Click to expand...

Who's ignoring the Constitution? The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;." What part of that talks about the states?

In fact as Chief Justice Marshall wrote for a unanimous Court in Barron v. Baltimore back in 1833, there is no indication that the founders intended for any of the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments. The Constitution only limits state power where it expressly says so.
 
The founders expected State and local governments to be strong, with the federal government being very weak - except in the clearly defined spheres in which power was explicitly given to them.
 
Mr D
Now I get it. Stupid me thought it meant because there would be no federal law prohibiting exercising one's right to one's religious beliefs then one could practice their religion in the USA.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
The founders expected State and local governments to be strong, with the federal government being very weak - except in the clearly defined spheres in which power was explicitly given to them.
Click to expand...

And bear in mind that the Constitution was written primarily by Federalists, and Chief Justice Marshall was a Federalist. These were the people who believed in a relatively strong federal government. They were the "big government liberals" of their day.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
The founders expected State and local governments to be strong, with the federal government being very weak - except in the clearly defined spheres in which power was explicitly given to them.
Click to expand...

HornHuskerDad said:
Terrific idea - maybe we should try that again.
Click to expand...

It would do so much to heal this country. Our system would fix a ton of problems on its own if we just stopped being a country of self-righteous pu$$ies and busybodies and let states and localities decide issues on their own.
 
Last edited:
^Montana is pretty red. It's been expected that Tester's seat will flip. Along with WVa (almost certainly red), this would set up the GOP to retake the Senate.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Who's ignoring the Constitution? The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;." What part of that talks about the states?

In fact as Chief Justice Marshall wrote for a unanimous Court in Barron v. Baltimore back in 1833, there is no indication that the founders intended for any of the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments. The Constitution only limits state power where it expressly says so.
Click to expand...
Post civil war constitutional theory is that the due process clause of the 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights to apply to the states, right? Can’t really cite Marshall or the founders.
 
VYFan said:
Post civil war constitutional theory is that the due process clause of the 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights to apply to the states, right? Can’t really cite Marshall or the founders.
Click to expand...
The post Civil War constitutional theory does, but the actual language does not. I reject the theory, because not only is it not in the text, it's in conflict with it.
 
Re: the Texas polling...good. I'm not sure I dislike Allred more than Beto, but it's close.
BTW, on the RCP website, there's some very telling data re: the polling today as compared to 2020. Trump is ahead in every battleground state today. Each state listed - OH, FL, WI, PA, MI, AZ, NV, NC, and GA had Biden leading on Oct. 27th, 2020. (Trump was barely ahead in OH by .6.)
This is setting up to be a landslide OR, sorry to say, a complete steal/civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-CLEMSON

CFB Playoffs • First Round at DKR
Sat, Dec 21 • 3:00 PM on TNT/Max
Clemson game and preview thread

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top