• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree? (1 Viewer)

Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?


  • Total voters
    47

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Detroit — A federal judge Tuesday dismissed female genital mutilation charges against several doctors in the first criminal case of its kind nationwide, ruling the law is unconstitutional.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman comes two weeks after defense lawyers mounted the first challenge to a 22-year-old genital mutilation law that went unused until April 2017.

The judge's opinion angered state Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

“I’m angry that the federal judge dismissed this horrific case that affected upwards of a hundred girls who were brutally victimized and attacked against their will," Jones said in a statement.

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/2066855002?__twitter_impression=true

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.
 
NOTE: The poll question is whether or not you agree with the judge's decision.
 
What a ****ing joke.
 
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.

Isn't the Founders not having things like genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause supporting the idea that it doesn't justify a federal law like this? I'd have to look at the opinion to be sure, but I'm struggling to see the clause justify a law like this, even with some of the more expansive readings we've had of it.

Doesn't justify the horrific and barbaric act of female genital mutilation. But if there really isn't any Constitutional justification for such a law, the judge is really powerless to uphold it.
 
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.

Should the judge ignore constitutionality when deciding a law based on your opinion of what the Founders would have wanted? And given they were ok with slavery and all the implicit barbarity that went with it, I don't think they would've got their panties in a twist about FGM.
 
Should the judge ignore constitutionality when deciding a law based on your opinion of what the Founders would have wanted? And given they were ok with slavery and all the implicit barbarity that went with it, I don't think they would've got their panties in a twist about FGM.

I'm sure they would have been against Female Genital Mutilation; but they probably would said that there were already laws on the books within and among the various states to stop such practices of infliction of bodily mutilation on one's children.
 
The perils of states rights.

Hopefully the federal government will find a legal way to protect girls from this atrocity since so many states still haven't seen fit to do it.

The Commerce Clause doesn't seem like a legit way to do it. The judge is probably correct on pure constitutional grounds.
 
There is a line we have between a parent’s right to raise their children and child abuse. Spanking is right on that line. This crosses that line by a mile.
 
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.

I think many are missing the point. The issue is-did the Commerce Clause empower Congress to pass this FGM law and the judge ruled it did not. He might well be on solid grounds doing that. Remember, just because the law makes sense (it does, FGM should be banned in the USA), we also have to ask if Congress has the proper power to do so. and the Judge found that it did not.

now the several states could all pass laws banning this practice and there would be no constitutional ramifications.

Finally, saying the Judge's ruling is legally sound is NOT THE SAME THING as supporting FGM
 
Disbar that anus of a judge.

why-because he doesn't think the Commerce Clause empowers congress to pass anything it wants?
 
The perils of states rights.

Hopefully the federal government will find a legal way to protect girls from this atrocity since so many states still haven't seen fit to do it.

The Commerce Clause doesn't seem like a legit way to do it. The judge is probably correct on pure constitutional grounds.


Bingo-very well stated.
 
I think many are missing the point. The issue is-did the Commerce Clause empower Congress to pass this FGM law and the judge ruled it did not. He might well be on solid grounds doing that. Remember, just because the law makes sense (it does, FGM should be banned in the USA), we also have to ask if Congress has the proper power to do so. and the Judge found that it did not.

now the several states could all pass laws banning this practice and there would be no constitutional ramifications.

Finally, saying the Judge's ruling is legally sound is NOT THE SAME THING as supporting FGM

I think you said this much better than I did.
 
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.

As the judge states, no treaty can give our government power beyond what is listed in the Constitution. And the commerce clause was supposed to only affect intrastate commerce. This is obviously a State Power. Nothing in the Constitution bans such a law, but nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to enact such a law. It's up to the States to pass such a law. As the judge notes.

On Constitutional grounds, I agree with the judges ruling.

Now, we should all write to our State Legislatures to get them to pass a law banning FGM.
 
why-because he doesn't think the Commerce Clause empowers congress to pass anything it wants?

Strawman.

Not "anything"

But some behavior is so foul that if the Commerce Clause is all we have to use against it then we use the Commerce Clause.

Suppose we were dealing not with mere genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy arms and legs, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go until the legislatures get around to passing laws? You would not say so if it was your goddam arms and legs!
 
There is no place for tolerating Islam in America. It is a vile folklore to establish the basis for child bride rape.
 
I think many are missing the point. The issue is-did the Commerce Clause empower Congress to pass this FGM law and the judge ruled it did not. He might well be on solid grounds doing that. Remember, just because the law makes sense (it does, FGM should be banned in the USA), we also have to ask if Congress has the proper power to do so. and the Judge found that it did not.

now the several states could all pass laws banning this practice and there would be no constitutional ramifications.

Finally, saying the Judge's ruling is legally sound is NOT THE SAME THING as supporting FGM
Indeed, well said.

And what any of this has to do with "we" being forced to assimilate to new cultures coming form overseas will remain puzzling.
 
why-because he doesn't think the Commerce Clause empowers congress to pass anything it wants?

Strawman.

Not "anything"

But some exceptional behavior, such as genital mutilation, is so foul that the Commerce Clause should be available for use against it.

Suppose we were dealing not with mere female genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy glans penises, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go? You would not say so if it was your goddam dick!
 
Strawman.

Not "anything"

But some behavior is so foul that if the Commerce Clause is all we have to use against it then we use the Commerce Clause.

Suppose we were dealing not with mere genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy arms and legs, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go until the legislatures get around to passing laws? You would not say so if it was your goddam arms and legs!

Nope, the idea that if something (anything?) is deemed important then it becomes a federal power to address it is not consistent with the US constitution.
 
Nope, the idea that if something (anything?) is deemed important then it becomes a federal power to address it is not consistent with the US constitution.

The best way to answer is to quote from my rerply #19:

"Suppose we were dealing not with mere female genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy glans penises, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go? You would not say so if it was your goddam dick!"
 
The best way to answer is to quote from my rerply #19:

"Suppose we were dealing not with mere female genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy glans penises, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go? You would not say so if it was your goddam dick!"

The remedy, as is done with many other 'objectionabale' activities, is to pass a state, county or city law banning the 'objectionable' acitivity. There is no federal law preventing me from breaking into your home, removing whatever I want, killing your pets and then burning the house to the ground to try to destroy evidence of my presence.
 
The remedy, as is done with many other 'objectionabale' activities, is to pass a state, county or city law banning the 'objectionable' acitivity. There is no federal law preventing me from breaking into your home, removing whatever I want, killing your pets and then burning the house to the ground to try to destroy evidence of my presence.

Good point, but there are some "medical procedures" for which a state, county or city cannot pass a law banning "objectionable" activities. That doesn't make this judge wrong, but it perhaps might open a few cans of worms as to what society is allowed to object.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom