• 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
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.

It my understanding that all of the charges were not dropped. The federal judge and all of us agree that FGM is abhorrent. I voted yes because federal judges know more about the law than I do. If he is wrong about the
ban being unconstitutional we will find that out if the ruling is appealed. I assume it will be. The judge seems to think its a state issue. When it involves the commerce clause its a federal issue. I think.
 
Female genital mutilation no longer banned as sexist. Duh?
 
Well, USViking, even if Michigan did not previously have an anti-Female Genital Mutilation law on the books, thankfully Michigan has a law on the books that can be used against this monster of a woman: Michigan's Child Abuse statute.

Here is the relevant language:
Thank you for the information.

Hopefully the monster will be found guilty in the First Degree.
 
Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?
  1. I didn't know there was (or even needed to be) a ban on genital mutilation.
  2. I wonder how jurists distinguish genital-related (specifically or coincidentally) fetish activity from mutilation?
  3. And just to answer the question, I don't have a fully formed normative stance regarding the judge's opinion, but my gut stance is to agree that the ban was unconstitutional.
 
I agree with the judge. Legislators/lawyers are going to have to deduce another way of outlawing FGM.
 
So much for "equal protection under the law."
 
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.

Echoing the sentiment iterated by Felis Leo, the Founders quite probably would have left it up to the states to decide. Michigan did decide on FGM, and made it a felony offense, which likely also represents the will of the people in that state. The judge overturned the will of Michigan however, based on something the constitution does not say.

Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights states,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

If challenged in a higher court, FGM will lose based on states rights. Hopefully this can be brought before SCOTUS.
 
You are correct- Michigan only got around to banning FGM in 2017.

Children should enjoy protection from this foul procedure without the foul procedure having to be minutely spelled out in statutes.

Judge Anus thinks an actual mutilated child is less bad than some supposed violation of the Constitution, or States Rights, or whatever. He is wrong. When the Constitution permits child abuse, then the Constitution should be ignored.

You really don't understand the concept of a federal government limited to its enumerated powers.
 
Really!! Four people agreed that genital mutilation for women is okay...we do live in a weird society.

wrong-four people understand that the federal government can only pass laws that are based on the constitutional delegation of power given to it by the Document.
 
There is no place for tolerating Islam in America. It is a vile folklore to establish the basis for child bride rape.

You okay with male genital mutilation?
 
Really!! Four people agreed that genital mutilation for women is okay...we do live in a weird society.

Don't read for comprehension much, huh.
 
wrong-four people understand that the federal government can only pass laws that are based on the constitutional delegation of power given to it by the Document.

That is certainly a philosophy I agree with, I am however puzzled by the fact this is the decision affirming that concept while laws about marijuana and guns are upheld routinely by district courts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That is certainly a philosophy I agree with, I am however puzzled by the fact this is the decision affirming that concept while laws about marijuana and guns are upheld routinely by district courts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well as you know, since you read the gun threads, I have always held that the commerce clause-as mutated by FDR-still does not PROPERLY empower the federal government to ban certain guns or weed. But those issues came up at a time when FDR or his successor had appointed every single federal judge and they created a precedent that ignored the tenth amendment and the intent of the founders. I suspect if FGM was an issue in the 1930s, FDR would have banned it and his Yes Dear Leader justices would have upheld that ban
 
Why would I be?

Maybe a better question is, do you oppose it on the same terms that you use opposing female genital mutilation? As in, to paraphrase you, "There is no place for tolerating Judaism in America."
 
wrong-four people understand that the federal government can only pass laws that are based on the constitutional delegation of power given to it by the Document.

Those four people might not be much help though when that judge is up for re-election. If he's elected- not all are, I understand.
There was a case several years ago here (B.C.) involving internet child porn where the judge threw it out and released the offender because he said the law was written wrong. It was a wildly unpopular decision that might have killed the judge's career if he depended on being elected. As it was, the law was rewritten.
 
Those four people might not be much help though when that judge is up for re-election. If he's elected- not all are, I understand.
There was a case several years ago here (B.C.) involving internet child porn where the judge threw it out and released the offender because he said the law was written wrong. It was a wildly unpopular decision that might have killed the judge's career if he depended on being elected. As it was, the law was rewritten.

federal judges in the USA are appointed for life. one of the reasons for that is exactly cases like this.
 
The crime took place in Michigan. The victims were residents of other states. The victims' parents were conducting interstate commerce by transporting them over state lines to submit to criminal procedure.

By this logic, all business are interstate because rare is the one that does not have out of state customers at some point. Yet this is clearly not the case. For example, while it is not Illegal for a person to own a sex toy in Georgia, it is Illegal to buy one there (unless the law changed relatively recently). So then, by your logic, anyone who lives in GA and goes to say MD and buys one has now committed a crime and the federal government can ban all sex toys under the Commerce Clause. Clearly this is not how the Commerce Clause works.

Basically it is interstate commerce if the product or service cross state lines AS PART OF the transaction. If all of the transaction occurs in one state, it is intrastate.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
By this logic, all business are interstate because rare is the one that does not have out of state customers at some point. Yet this is clearly not the case. For example, while it is not Illegal for a person to own a sex toy in Georgia, it is Illegal to buy one there (unless the law changed relatively recently). So then, by your logic, anyone who lives in GA and goes to say MD and buys one has now committed a crime and the federal government can ban all sex toys under the Commerce Clause. Clearly this is not how the Commerce Clause works.

Basically it is interstate commerce if the product or service cross state lines AS PART OF the transaction. If all of the transaction occurs in one state, it is intrastate.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

If a man growing wheat on his own land to feed his own family and farm animals could be considered touching upon interstate commerce and therefore able to be regulated by Congress, literally anything can fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
 
Maybe a better question is, do you oppose it on the same terms that you use opposing female genital mutilation? As in, to paraphrase you, "There is no place for tolerating Judaism in America."

Yes..
 
Back
Top Bottom