[Robert DeLong]

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.

So does that mean all laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional?

That has to be the greatest overreach ever by a judge, in my opinion.

[i_robot73]

>
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.

[Bull Snipe]

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.

[mdmathis6]

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.