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

[TurtleDude]

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

well its good to see you finally understand the law because I am absolutely right on this issue-as I am on almost all issues of constitutional law. BTW the post right after yours demonstrates what happens when someone has absolutely no understanding of federalism and instead posts based on what he wants, rather than what the law is. its a common problem with those ignorant of the constitution

 

[Unitedwestand13]

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.

If you want to punish someone for violations of the law, the only way to do so is in accordance with the law.

The judge ruled that this issue is the state’s domain, so why are you not challenging the state law that allowed the act to happen?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

well its good to see you finally understand the law because I am absolutely right on this issue-as I am on almost all issues of constitutional law. BTW the post right after yours demonstrates what happens when someone has absolutely no understanding of federalism and instead posts based on what he wants, rather than what the law is. its a common problem with those ignorant of the constitution

I actually looked up the story and read what the judge said.

The judge condemned the act, but he said that the federal government’s hands are tied in this situation.

As for the legal reasoning, i agree that medical practices are not acts of commerce as defined by the constitution, and since this medical practice is performed in the operating room it is solely the issue of the state where this operating room is.

We may disagree on things Turtle, but I assume we can find agreement on the fact that legal matters are decided on the details of each case?

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

Bold: I voted "yes". I have never, WILL NEVER, support genital mutilation of children being legal. Period.

I voted "yes" because the judge is correct in that this is not an issue which is under the purview of the federal government under the Constitution. It is a States issue and I would be among the first to vote for banning it if I have ANY chance to. So NO, what you said is not "reasonable". That is just you twisting things around to a POV that you want to push because we don't agree with you on letting our federal government go beyond its powers. Letting the Federal Government go beyond its Constitutional Powers would cause FAR more harm to FAR more people in the long run.

 

[Rickeroo]

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.



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.

I'm vehemently opposed to FGM. Besides the face value, the practice of it is indicative of a non-Western third world culture, which I also oppose. However, laws that say "Be a westernized American" don't work in the larger context of an ever-leftist society.

Take France with the burqa ban. It doesn't work if there is no onus to have French muslims, or middle easterners or whatever they are, to adopt French culture and actually become French. Everywhere else in French society, muslims are allowed to segregate and practice non-French culture - it's racist to force middle easterners to westernize.

Same thing in America. What good is an FGM ban if we socially allow the balkanization of immigrants, specifically the non-western ones? I agree with the FGM law in spirit, but it's not going to solve the larger issue - only natural social pressure will do that, which is not forthcoming.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

You have created a strawman. You have changed the situation from what it is (there being other proper and legal ways to ban FGM) to what is not but assumed for your question (Commerce Clause being the only available option). Highly disingenuous.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Waddy]

Diversity means accepting other cultural values. As Margaret Mead enlightened us, all values are subjective. So if honor killings and genital mutilation are a common part of immigrant culture, we should do all we can to accommodate their long held beliefs. In the past we forced immigrants to assimilate, and now recognize that mistake; today we hope to preserve immigrant culture. America is not so much a stew of different cultures; it's more like a tossed salad; every culture mixed in but still separate. It's the price we pay for diversity.

 

[maquiscat]

Diversity means accepting other cultural values. As Margaret Mead enlightened us, all values are subjective. So if honor killings and genital mutilation are a common part of immigrant culture, we should do all we can to accommodate their long held beliefs. In the past we forced immigrants to assimilate, and now recognize that mistake; today we hope to preserve immigrant culture. America is not so much a stew of different cultures; it's more like a tossed salad; every culture mixed in but still separate. It's the price we pay for diversity.

While I will agree that values and morals are subjective, because they are, there are certain ones a person should not be subjected to unless and until they are an adult who can give informed consent to them. Honor killings in a prime example. Why should I be subject to such a practice, or force another to be subject to it? Likewise for genital mutilation, be it male or female. Since they hold no medical purpose, no child should ever be subjected to it. Let them make that decision on their own as an adult who has had the years to determine if that is the cultural practice they wish to follow.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Horn]

well its good to see you finally understand the law because I am absolutely right on this issue-as I am on almost all issues of constitutional law. BTW the post right after yours demonstrates what happens when someone has absolutely no understanding of federalism and instead posts based on what he wants, rather than what the law is. its a common problem with those ignorant of the constitution

The constitution was abolished upon Abraham Lincoln having the Maryland general assembly imprisoned for the remainder of the CW.

 

[TurtleDude]

The constitution was abolished upon Abraham Lincoln having the Maryland general assembly imprisoned for the remainder of the CW.

an interesting but irrelevant side note to this discussion

 

[Tom Horn]

an interesting but irrelevant side note to this discussion

So you’re saying it’s upheld as long as the three branches pretends it’s upheld plus the concerned aligned citizenry? What happens when the justice department completely ignores it? Are the citizens then allowed to ditch it too? ( reads Janet Reno + Timmy = trashed )

 

[TurtleDude]

So you’re saying it’s upheld as long as the three branches pretends it’s upheld plus the concerned aligned citizenry? What happens when the justice department completely ignores it? Are the citizens then allowed to ditch it too? ( reads Janet Reno + Timmy = trashed )

wouldn't you agree the judge in this case followed the constitution by holding the commerce clause couldn't be expanded to allow such a law ?

 

[Tom Horn]

wouldn't you agree the judge in this case followed the constitution by holding the commerce clause couldn't be expanded to allow such a law ?

The judiciary branch did a superb job in interpreting their ruling upon the commerce departments authority.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Seems we have some strange rulings from some of our judges. They like to lean left whenever possible and ignore the original intent of laws to do so. To think that we should allow this barbaric act to be practiced in the US is just sick. When you come here you should play by our rules not the other way around. I travel around the world and I never assume that I can conduct business any way I like with no regard to the laws, customs and traditions of the country I am in.
Some people who come to our country continue with these sick cultural practices and then we have a judge who says its OK.

 

[Masterhawk]

Not that I agree with genital mutilation but I don't think it's covered by the commerce clause.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not that I agree with genital mutilation but I don't think it's covered by the commerce clause.

I wish judges who thought like him were sitting on the supreme court in the 1930s and 1940s

 

[Waddy]

While I will agree that values and morals are subjective, because they are, there are certain ones a person should not be subjected to unless and until they are an adult who can give informed consent to them. Honor killings in a prime example. Why should I be subject to such a practice, or force another to be subject to it? Likewise for genital mutilation, be it male or female. Since they hold no medical purpose, no child should ever be subjected to it. Let them make that decision on their own as an adult who has had the years to determine if that is the cultural practice they wish to follow.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Your response is a good example of a subjective value judgement. Different cultures have different values regarding parental rights. Your statement reflects a very "Western" attitude. Not all cultures would agree with you. They maintain their own subjective value systems. Of course, that's what you get when you express a desire for diversity; sometimes that "diversity" doesn't appeal much after all. You don't get to pick which subjective values an immigrant brings in; being human they bring in them all.

 

[maquiscat]

Your response is a good example of a subjective value judgement. Different cultures have different values regarding parental rights. Your statement reflects a very "Western" attitude. Not all cultures would agree with you. They maintain their own subjective value systems. Of course, that's what you get when you express a desire for diversity; sometimes that "diversity" doesn't appeal much after all. You don't get to pick which subjective values an immigrant brings in; being human they bring in them all.

So if a different culture felt that parents had a right, and a religious imperative, to cut three fingers off the left hand of their children, we should respect that? I mean I am all for an adult of that culture saying, "I believe that my deity wants this so I choose to follow the deity and have my fingers cut off." But why would we let a child, who might not want to be a part of that culture when they are an adult, to suffer a physical mutilation that will last them the rest of their life?

And you failed to address my point about honor killings. If I, someone who was not part of that culture, or one who left it, we're to fall under their conditions of honor killings, should they be allowed to kill me since that is their culture?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Waddy]

So if a different culture felt that parents had a right, and a religious imperative, to cut three fingers off the left hand of their children, we should respect that? I mean I am all for an adult of that culture saying, "I believe that my deity wants this so I choose to follow the deity and have my fingers cut off." But why would we let a child, who might not want to be a part of that culture when they are an adult, to suffer a physical mutilation that will last them the rest of their life?

And you failed to address my point about honor killings. If I, someone who was not part of that culture, or one who left it, we're to fall under their conditions of honor killings, should they be allowed to kill me since that is their culture?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Some cultures cut a hunk off the penis, yet that is respected. Has been for centuries. I'm not saying you gotta approve of it, or even like it. Just expect these kinds of things when your culture becomes all diversified. You don't get to choose which cultural values and practices a group brings in; they bring it all in, so quit being offended by something you should have anticipated. People come here, different from you, and you want to remake them in your image. They are what they are. It's racist and arrogant to criticize them for being who they are. Learn to respect other cultures.

 

[The Mark]

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'm confused by this, and unsure I want to spend the time tracking down the reasoning.

How the hell could genital mutilation be protected by the constitution?

If that is correct, we need an amendment immediately.


Edit: Ah, it's only that the fedgov can't ban it using the commerce clause, per this ruling.

Now I'm wondering why it was banned that way, and how it could have been better addressed.
State laws against it?


I can't see a downside to making it illegal, so far as I know there are no positive results, only negative effects.
I can't conceive of an argument apart from "it's religion", but IMO that defense stops when it involves harm to people.

 

[uptower]

The judge seemed only to rule that on a technicality part of the case is unconstitutional. He still threw the book at the defendants as hard as he could because FGM as an act runs afoul of so many other rights and protections for women and girls, as well as no doubt a slew of medical malpractice regulations.

This was not a decision in factor of FGM by any stretch. The case was not tossed, and the perps are still likely going to jail.

As for the constitutionality of the law, this looks like a result of attaching riders to unrelated bills. I'm sure of congress went back and did it right they could craft a binding and constitutional ban on FGM.

 

[jet57]

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.

What about Jewish babies? There were in 1789 as well, so were the wealthy and descendants of nobility; nobody was complaining about it then.

 

[maquiscat]

Some cultures cut a hunk off the penis, yet that is respected. Has been for centuries. I'm not saying you gotta approve of it, or even like it. Just expect these kinds of things when your culture becomes all diversified. You don't get to choose which cultural values and practices a group brings in; they bring it all in, so quit being offended by something you should have anticipated. People come here, different from you, and you want to remake them in your image. They are what they are. It's racist and arrogant to criticize them for being who they are. Learn to respect other cultures.

You have still failed to address the point of those who are not part of that culture. Should I be allowed to be killed, not being a part of that culture, if their culture determines there need to be an honor killings on me? This is under the premise that they came here, I didn't go to there.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Waddy]

You have still failed to address the point of those who are not part of that culture. Should I be allowed to be killed, not being a part of that culture, if their culture determines there need to be an honor killings on me? This is under the premise that they came here, I didn't go to there.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

So who is trying to mutilate you? Or kill you? You are not part of that culture, so you got nothing to worry about. Their rules don't apply to you. They have zero interest in you, or what you do. Now, that might change if they were ever to have the numbers to dominate politics, where they could push that agenda. Then you better worry.

 

[antiquity]

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?

What do you mean "stated this'? Read the results of the poll that says 'Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?....that states it very plainly.