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

[Tom Horn]

Now show me where the basics of judeanism promotes child bride rape.

 

[Grand Mal]

Yes..

Well, I appreciate your honesty but it leads me to conclude that there should be no place in America for tolerating you and your bigotry.

 

[Grand Mal]

Now show me where the basics of judeanism promotes child bride rape.

You talking to me?
I don't have time right now to glean disgusting references from the Bible (references like the last righteous man in town offering his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a mob) but if I get bored later we can trade obscene anecdotes from the Koran and the Old Testament, okay?

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

one of the real nadirs of the Supreme court's decision making-up there with Dred Scott and the internment of American citizens of Japanese Ancestory

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

Maybe, hopefully, it's only that we have four weird people in this thread.

Can either of you point out where ANYONE in this thread has stated this? Or are you going to admit just how dishonest your statements are?

 

[maquiscat]

Can either of you point out where ANYONE in this thread has stated this? Or are you going to admit just how dishonest your statements are?

I'd like to know which four they think are the "wierdos"

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[digsbe]

I think the judge does not understand the severity of harm that female genital mutilation causes. It's basically like saying a parent should have the right to have their daughter's arm amputated because that's covered by the commerce clause. The harm involved should not be protected by our constitution.

 

[maquiscat]

I think the judge does not understand the severity of harm that female genital mutilation causes. It's basically like saying a parent should have the right to have their daughter's arm amputated because that's covered by the commerce clause. The harm involved should not be protected by our constitution.

The harm involved is irrelevant to whether or not a law is constitutionally valid. The Commerce Clause simply is not the justification for such a law. There are many other ways around it, mind you. For the most part this needs to be handled by the states. Additionally, such procedures, despite what others might think, still need to be allowed for consenting adults who might wish to have them. And before you try the argument that no one would want female circumcision or the like, one only has to look at all of the other body mods that currently legally occur, to prove such an argument false. Personally, I would say make it outright illegal to perform any surgery of any type that is not either medically necessary to save a life, prevent further injury, or correct a deformity, either birth or by physical trauma on a minor. That covers it pretty well without needing to make unconstitutional laws.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[MSgt]

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.

They weren't all "ok" with it.

- This is why there had to be a Three-Fifth Compromise before all would ratify the Constitution in 1787. By the way, the State of Vermont had already set the precedent a decade earlier in 1777 by abolishing slavery.

- This is why a few years later the Slave Trade Act of 1794 was passed, which limited American involvement in the international slave trade. This was the first of several anti-slavery trade Acts.

- And, as per the compromise of 1787, Congress outlawed the importation of slaves beginning on 1 January 1808, the earliest date permitted by the Constitution.

Without the importation of slaves, the internal slave trade emerged. And it was over the question of slave expansion into new territories and new states that greatly pushed the country to civil war. If there is anything we should all learn from our history, it is that we must be willing to compromise with the immoral and simple-minded douche bags who unfortunately have a say in our future.

 

[braindrain]

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!

It is attitudes like yours that let governments get out of control and start down the path to dictatorships.

We either have a constitution that the government must follow or we just accept that the US Gov. Can do what ever it feels like. Rights be damned.

 

[braindrain]

Well, this guy hasn't defended his dick against hypothetical amputative assault. But there is no doubt he would change his tune, fast, if it was a real assault.


Unacceptable. While we wait for these banning laws lIttle girls go under the knife.

And why is 'objectionable' in quotes? I did not use that word. I used the word "foul". You think "foul" is too strong, an exaggeration, or somthing?


Incorrect. Were there no other laws preventing it then there is always the Commerce Clause!

Can you really not comprehend that the moment you give the government the ability to simply pretend our laws cover things they clearly don't then you have gidn our government unlimited power which means you have no real rights.

 

[jdog21]

The harm involved is irrelevant to whether or not a law is constitutionally valid. The Commerce Clause simply is not the justification for such a law. There are many other ways around it, mind you. For the most part this needs to be handled by the states. Additionally, such procedures, despite what others might think, still need to be allowed for consenting adults who might wish to have them. And before you try the argument that no one would want female circumcision or the like, one only has to look at all of the other body mods that currently legally occur, to prove such an argument false. Personally, I would say make it outright illegal to perform any surgery of any type that is not either medically necessary to save a life, prevent further injury, or correct a deformity, either birth or by physical trauma on a minor. That covers it pretty well without needing to make unconstitutional laws.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

If federal laws regarding body mutilation to children is considered against the commerce clause that would call into question every child abuse law that's on the federal books, would it not?

 

[maquiscat]

If federal laws regarding body mutilation to children is considered against the commerce clause that would call into question every child abuse law that's on the federal books, would it not?

Could you reword that please? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Taking a stab though, if the law is based upon the Commerce Clause, then indeed it does need to be brought into question. However, if not based upon the Commerce Clause, then why would it need to be called into question?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Anagram]

If federal laws regarding body mutilation to children is considered against the commerce clause that would call into question every child abuse law that's on the federal books, would it not?

Are there other federal laws relating to child abuse that rely on the Commerce Clause? Things like child-trafficking laws wouldn't rely on it. Programs like CAPTA don't rely on the commerce clause and only provide funding to individual states.

 

[VanCleef]

You okay with male genital mutilation?

Both are despicable in a 1st world country, IMO.

I'm so glad I'm not mutilated, millions of men/boys will never know what that having a fully intact genitalia feels like and from the bottom of my heart It pains me. They didn't even get to make this life altering decision for themselves.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

The spend power. For better (and many times worse), the feds get states to follow federal wishes by withholding various sources of important money unrelated to the subject.

 

[USViking]

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

Maybe, hopefully, it's only that we have four weird people in this thread.

Can either of you point out where ANYONE in this thread has stated this? Or are you going to admit just how dishonest your statements are?

I stand by what I said.

Here is the hypothetical choice:

(1) Genital mutilation of children should be legally permissible if the Commerce Clause was all there was to prevent it.

(2) If the Commerce Clause was the only weapon available then it should be accepted as a legitimate to use against genital mutilation of children.

Here are illustrative quotes from two people who have chosen (1):

post #39
FGM is disgusting and state law should be passed banning it but even more dangerous is the attitude that the constitution should allow the federal government any power that current whims demand

post #44:
There is a problem. But it is not solved by trying to use the Commerce Clause as a hammer to prosecute people for doing things which are legal in the state in which they are doing them.

It is reasonable to assume that all those who voted “Yes” in the OP poll would have chosen (1), and that is a disgraceful choice to make.

And it is reasonable to assume that all the (1) voters would be screaming “Commerce Clause!” at the top of their lungs if the knife was searching for their genitals.

 

[Rickeroo]

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 voted yes. The doctors were merely following a middle Eastern type custom, which is free under the constitution. We may find it to be a low-income 3rd world activity, but it's based on custom and not malice.

Essentially, the law was put in there to bend Middle Eastern Americans to a western way of life. However, there is no social onus of assimilation, so we will get increasingly balkanized pockets of different world cultures in America. Those pockets will veer decidedly towards the 2nd and third world.

 

[TurtleDude]

I stand by what I said.

Here is the hypothetical choice:

(1) Genital mutilation of children should be legally permissible if the Commerce Clause was all there was to prevent it.

(2) If the Commerce Clause was the only weapon available then it should be accepted as a legitimate to use against genital mutilation of children.

Here are illustrative quotes from two people who have chosen (1):





It is reasonable to assume that all those who voted “Yes” in the OP poll would have chosen (1), and that is a disgraceful choice to make.

And it is reasonable to assume that all the (1) voters would be screaming “Commerce Clause!” at the top of their lungs if the knife was searching for their genitals.

since you obviously have no legal training, I suppose I can excuse the nonsense you posted but the judge was correct in finding that the commerce clause is not a proper delegation of power to the federal government to deal with this abomination. Rather state laws should be passed to ban it

 

[USViking]

since you obviously have no legal training, I suppose I can excuse the nonsense you posted but the judge was correct in finding that the commerce clause is not a proper delegation of power to the federal government to deal with this abomination. Rather state laws should be passed to ban it

It takes no legal training to discern that while legislators fiddle children will continue to suffer abomination.

It takes no legal training to discern that the threatened children should not have to wait on fiddling legislators.

You can't stand the Commerce Clause? All right then, pick something else, anything else, state or Federal as long as the children receive the IMMEDIATE protection they need, and which they are entitled to, without qualification.

 

[TurtleDude]

It taked no legal training to discern that while legislators fiddle children will continue to suffer abomination.

It takes no legal training to discern that the threatened children should not have to wait on fiddling legislators.

You can't stand the Commerce Clause? All right then, pick something else, anything else, state or Federal as long as the children receive the IMMEDIATE protection they need, and which they are entitled to, without qualification.

I have a great idea-if want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was not properly given the power to do-START a movement to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to allow it that power

 

[truthatallcost]

I voted yes. The doctors were merely following a middle Eastern type custom, which is free under the constitution. We may find it to be a low-income 3rd world activity, but it's based on custom and not malice.

Constitutionality aside, how can you describe FGM as not containing malice? The idea is that women are scary, gross creatures that need their ability to orgasm severely diminished, otherwise they'll go sluttin' around on their husband.

Essentially, the law was put in there to bend Middle Eastern Americans to a western way of life. However, there is no social onus of assimilation, so we will get increasingly balkanized pockets of different world cultures in America. Those pockets will veer decidedly towards the 2nd and third world.

What about protecting children against being mutilated? That's my primary concern, not whether Muslim immigrants in Dearborn & Detroit are assimilating to American values. Frankly, assimilation hasn't worked in European societies either, and countries like France and Belgium have a much higher percentage of muslims than we do.

Opposing FGM should always be about protecting the right of a child to not suffer agonizing pain & have their body parts involuntarily removed.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It takes no legal training to discern that while legislators fiddle children will continue to suffer abomination.

It takes no legal training to discern that the threatened children should not have to wait on fiddling legislators.

You can't stand the Commerce Clause? All right then, pick something else, anything else, state or Federal as long as the children receive the IMMEDIATE protection they need, and which they are entitled to, without qualification.

I normally don’t find myself on the same side as turtledude on legal matters, in this case it might be a first for me.

The judge in this case ruled that congress did not have the power to ban female genital mutilation on the basis of it being an act of commerce. Female genital mutilation is technically criminal assault, not an act of commerce, so it is not under the preview of the commerce clause. It is up to the individual states to regulate medical practice and in this case Michigan must have some legal loophole with regards to female genital mutilation

 

[USViking]

I have a great idea-if want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was not properly given the power to do-START a movement to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to allow it that power

You are being ridiculous.

Children who are under the knife of abomination should not have to wait on the years to decades-long process of Constitutional Amendment passage.

And do not try to tell me you would agree to wait if that knife was headed for your genitals.

Now I have had enough of the intellectual and moral excrement of your posts. Good bye.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are being ridiculous.

Children who are under the knife of abomination should not have to wait on the years to decades-long process of Constitutional Amendment passage.

And do not try to tell me you would agree to wait if that knife was headed for your genitals.

Now I have had enough of the intellectual and moral excrement of your posts. Good bye.

I'd shoot someone trying to mutilate me-under Ohio law that would be legal self defense

You continue to prove you haven't a clue about the dual sovereignty this country is under. you are only demonstrating you have a complete lack of understanding of the concept of a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Your pathetic arguments are the crap that led to the nonsense we saw under FDR. IT IS A STATE ISSUE. blame Michigan for not banning that mutilation.