- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,545
- Reaction score
- 560
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Really!! Four people agreed that genital mutilation for women is okay...we do live in a weird society.
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.
That's the only interesting question. There have been cases in the US where parents used religion to deny surgery for a child.
Thank you for the information.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:
Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?
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.
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.
If they can do this then they can give a ten year old boy breast implants.
Really!! Four people agreed that genital mutilation for women is okay...we do live in a weird society.
There is no place for tolerating Islam in America. It is a vile folklore to establish the basis for child bride rape.
Really!! Four people agreed that genital mutilation for women is okay...we do live in a weird society.
Legally the decision is correct.NOTE: The poll question is whether or not you agree with the judge's decision.
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
Why would I be?
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.
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
I happen to disagree with that particular ruling. I can agree that the Federal can place restrictions on what crosses state lines, but not on the growing process.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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?