• 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?

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


  • Total voters
    47

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,720
Reaction score
6,277
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.
 

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,720
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
NOTE: The poll question is whether or not you agree with the judge's decision.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
3,413
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What a ****ing joke.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
21,551
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
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.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
9,647
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
7,602
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,681
Reaction score
81,038
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,681
Reaction score
81,038
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Disbar that anus of a judge.

why-because he doesn't think the Commerce Clause empowers congress to pass anything it wants?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,681
Reaction score
81,038
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 

USViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
507
Location
Greensboro NC USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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!
 

Tom Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
207
Location
TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is no place for tolerating Islam in America. It is a vile folklore to establish the basis for child bride rape.
 

Chagos

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
29,053
Reaction score
7,579
Location
in expatria
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
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.
 

USViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
507
Location
Greensboro NC USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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!
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,516
Reaction score
40,157
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 

USViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
507
Location
Greensboro NC USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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!"
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,516
Reaction score
40,157
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,843
Reaction score
3,612
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Top Bottom