Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spiff

This ruling is a pyrrhic victory at best. The Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on an abortion procedure. Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to ban abortions? What’s sad is that this was never even at issue (whether the feds have the power in the first place).

What should’ve happened is this ban should’ve been struck down as a violation of state rights; and only then, Stenberg v Carhart should’ve been reversed so that states could pass their own ‘partial birth’ abortion bans if they so choose. I’m unsurprised that Kennedy authored this decision.


134 posted on 04/18/2007 7:44:28 AM PDT by AntiGuv (sorry .. i couldn't resist!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AntiGuv

The federalism concerns were not directly at issue in this case, so it would have been inappropriate for the Court to issue the ruling you suggest. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero chance the current Court would strike down the ban based on those concerns, even if that question were directly presented to the Court.


143 posted on 04/18/2007 7:47:04 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv

I agree. This ban should have been struck down as an undue expansion of the commerce clause. Congress has no business legislating this issue. Stenberg should have been reversed and that would have allowed states to make their own decisions (hopefully with all 50 states banning it). As much as I want partial birth abortion to be banned, I am having a really hard time seeing how this was an issue for Congress to take up.


150 posted on 04/18/2007 7:48:51 AM PDT by bcbuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv

Looks like Thomas would have struck it down if the commerce clause question came up. Here’s a quote from his concurrence:

“I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it”


155 posted on 04/18/2007 7:50:35 AM PDT by bcbuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv
Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to ban abortions?

Start with the Preamble ... "establish Justice" ... "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." I don't think that allows one to murder our Posterity, do you? Or are you trying to argue that the right to exist is not Constitutionally protected?

165 posted on 04/18/2007 7:54:02 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv
You know, I was just thinking along the same lines. I don't want to be negative, but I have to wonder if we won the battle and lost the war on this one. It seems to me that this SCOTUS fully accepts the notion that the federal government has jurisdiction in abortion matters - not the states. In other words, they agree with one of the major tenets of Roe. Now, all we can hope for is more federal restrictions on abortion procedures not an overturning of Roe. I'm not a legal expert - I'm just thinking out loud.
170 posted on 04/18/2007 7:54:48 AM PDT by sola_fide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv
Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to ban abortions? What’s sad is that this was never even at issue (whether the feds have the power in the first place)

The Fourteenth Amendment, properly understood, prohibits States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, your question might be turned around: Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to unleash anarchy and death upon whole class of persons by denying them the equal protection of the laws?

Cordially,

242 posted on 04/18/2007 8:14:59 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv
Deprivation of innocent life is not a state's right.

This is not a confederacy.

We have a federal union of states that are united on the principles outlined in the Preamble. In order to form a more perfect union than was possible under a confederate system, all states agreed to a federal Constitution whose purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For a state to claim the right to kill the innocent, it would have to secede from the union.

373 posted on 04/18/2007 9:23:50 AM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv
This ruling is a pyrrhic victory at best. The Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on an abortion procedure. Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to ban abortions?

The 14th Amendment. Due process clause.

456 posted on 04/18/2007 10:06:21 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: AntiGuv

What about illegal drugs? Do the feds have the power to make crack etc. illegal?


811 posted on 04/18/2007 7:54:15 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson