Posted on 11/26/2018 5:13:23 PM PST by Kaslin
180 degrees off. This judge said it is a state matter. In Roe the justices ruled the states CAN'T have a say.
Bernie was born September 23, 1943 (age 75 years). Here’s a summary of being a judge vs. a miner by Peter Cook of the Beyond the Fringe group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUZNynYXzM
(If you’re annoyed by British humor, scroll ahead to the 8:00 mark for the punch line.)
Men’s genitals get mutilated at birth as a matter of course.
” Allah commands it! “
Get that A$$HOLE out of the country !
That is what he decided. And I agree with him. The commerce clause has been so stretched and warped to give the federal government almost unlimited reach. It would be nice to see more judges ruling like this. Though I do find it suspicious that a judge finally finds a limit to the commerce clause when it deals with Muslims.
>
Last Tuesday, US District Judge Bernard Friedman dismissed conspiracy and mutilation charges against each of the eight defendants, ruling that the 1996 federal law banning female genital mutilation was unconstitutional because Congress has no power to enforce such a law.
>
Yet, give ‘im any case re: ANY ‘gun-control’ (even if it was brought on ‘shall NOT be infringed’ grounds) a/o ‘welfare’ (vs. 4th/5th/9th/10th/13th), or.... he’ll get busy counting the # of angels on the head of a pin and see just how many splits in a hair he can get.
And where are the broads from NOW ???
Not a peep about the very bill the pushed to get passed a few years ago !
The activists are democrats, to them the States have on authority, only the Federal Government has the authority to do anything.
I believe you are correct and the article also states:
The Michigan case led state legislators to officially pass a state law banning female genital mutilation. Anyone performing or assisting in the procedure can face up to 15 years in prison.
Men’s genitals get mutilated at birth as a matter of course.
The equivalent for a man would be the cutting off of the head of the penis. What these Muslim crazies are doing is a clitorectomy, not a simple “nick” as they call it. What is commonly done in America is removal of foreskin, which actually has health benefits and does nothing to inhibit pleasure.
Don’t think so. He could have found a right to FMG based on a right to privacy in the XIV Amendment to the Constitution.
The law was based in part on the commerce clause in the Constitution which the judge said was a violation. There are other ways to have banned the practice without a misapplication of the commerce clause. I like the ruling because a lot of muddle headed laws are based on the misapplication of the commerce clause and it opens them up to litigation as well. A federal law could be passed empowering the CDC or the surgeon general to ban the act. The state of Michigan could ban the act.
That’s a nutcase judge. Congress does not “enforce” laws.
Yet another case of a liberal judge ignoring the law and overreaching with his decision. He’s 75 and should retire.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But that wouldn't apply here either.
was being facetious. The implied right to privacy supposedly in the XIV Amendment is the basis for the Roe V. Wade decision.
The judge cited the Commerce Clause in his ruling, saying the “power to outlaw female genital mutilation … belonged to individual states”:
The law was not based on the Commerce Clause. Instead it talks strictly about foreign commerce. Not the same as interstate commerce.
18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is—
(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.
(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(d) Whoever knowingly transports from the United States and its territories a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of conduct with regard to that person that would be a violation of subsection (a) if the conduct occurred within the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(Added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 645(b)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–709; amended Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1088, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1970.)
The term “foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.
Worst amendment ever to be approved due to being able to broadly interpret it as something different than its original intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.