States Rights and Abortion Drugs

[rahl]

You said

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place


That's a lie

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

 

[vegas giants]

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

But no murder took place


You said a murder HAS TO TAKE PLACE

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place

 

[rahl]

But no murder took place


You said a murder HAS TO TAKE PLACE

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

 

[vegas giants]

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

This is spam

 

[rahl]

This is spam

You keep asking me the same question I've answered over and over and over again. Why do you expect the answer to change? If you ask me a question, or make a false accusation, I will correct you with the same answer as many times as you need.

 

[vegas giants]

You keep asking me the same question I've answered over and over and over again. Why do you expect the answer to change? If you ask me a question, or make a false accusation, I will correct you with the same answer as many times as you need.

Because you are lying


You said

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place




That is a lie

 

[rahl]

Because you are lying

This is against the TOS

You said

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

That is a lie

It is a strawman you created. I have consistently and clearly shown you why you are wrong. Trolling does not change this, neither does feigning reading comprehension problems.

 

[vegas giants]

This is against the TOS

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

It is a strawman you created. I have consistently and clearly shown you why you are wrong. Trolling does not change this, neither does feigning reading comprehension problems.

What you are saying is factually incorrect


You said

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place


That is factually incorrect

 

[rahl]

What you are saying is factually incorrect

It's actually 100% factually correct.

You said

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

That is factually incorrect

No it isn't.

 

[vegas giants]

It's actually 100% factually correct.

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

No it isn't.

You said a murder HAS TO TAKE PLACE



DID A MURDER TAKE PLACE HERE?

Jury convicts out of state woman in murder for hire case

A federal jury sitting in McAllen has convicted a 52-year-old woman for conspiracy to commit murder for hire

www.justice.gov

 

[rahl]

You said a murder HAS TO TAKE PLACE

No, I said it has to actually BE murder.

DID A MURDER TAKE PLACE HERE?

Jury convicts out of state woman in murder for hire case

A federal jury sitting in McAllen has convicted a 52-year-old woman for conspiracy to commit murder for hire

www.justice.gov

addressed and refuted your point on this already.

 

[vegas giants]

No, I said it has to actually BE murder.

addressed and refuted your point on this already.

No. This is your quote

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place

TAKE PLACE



DENY THAT IS YOUR QUOTE

 

[rahl]

No. This is your quote

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place

TAKE PLACE

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

DENY THAT IS YOUR QUOTE

I have shown you why you are wrong, repeatedly. when you troll and pretend you don't comprehend what I wrote, that doesn't actually change what I wrote.

 

[vegas giants]

Right, meaning IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE MURDER. Not that the act itself is carried out. Like I have said over and over and over and over again.

If a wife in TX conspires to kill her husband while he is in OK on business, she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder because murder is a crime in OK and TX. If a pregnant woman plans to drive to AZ to have an abortion, her driver can not be charged with conspiracy nor can she be charged with conspiracy, because it's NOT murder. It is LEGAL in the jurisdiction the act will or has taken place in.

I have shown you why you are wrong, repeatedly. when you troll and pretend you don't comprehend what I wrote, that doesn't actually change what I wrote.

But you won't deny its your quote. Lol



You have derailed this thread long enough with your nonsense


Feel free to continue if you must


But you have been busted and you have zero credibility now.

 

[rahl]

But you won't deny its your quote. Lol

Why would I?

You have derailed this thread long enough with your lies

I have as usual, refuted you at every turn.

Feel free to continue if you must

But you have been busted and you have zero credibility now.

It's hilarious when you are defeated and have to resort to this mindless trolling, and you think you fool anyone when you do.

 

[mrjurrs]

Here's an interesting question, with the "Separation of Powers" in question being between states and the Federal government. Do the states have the authority to ban abortifacients that the FDA has approved? Sarah Perry has written an opinion piece on it, in which she has some interesting observations of recent Supreme Court history during the pandemic:

Poison pills: States should look to ban abortion drugs

In the Wild West that is post-Roe v. Wade abortion legislation and litigation, abortion drugs (“abortifacients”) have emerged as the next legal battleground.

www.washingtontimes.com

I would suggest no. Nullification doesn't work. Ask Fort Sumpter.

 

[vegas giants]

I would suggest no. Nullification doesn't work. Ask Fort Sumpter.

I hope it goes to court but I am sure you are right

 

[Lursa]

US constitution and common law.

Nope. Standing and jurisdiction are set in stone.

I've already shown why you are wrong. It's why TX didn't win their lawsuit against PA.

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.

 

[rahl]

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.

I've sourced what you asked, and even gave you a court case as an example.

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.

Well, my argument hasn't failed, as evidenced by the fact TX case against PA was tossed out on it's ass.

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.

I have not offered any opinions, unfounded or otherwise. This is BASIC constitutional law.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.

I will simply correct you as many times as you need me to.

 

[Lursa]

I've sourced what you asked, and even gave you a court case as an example.

Well, my argument hasn't failed, as evidenced by the fact TX case against PA was tossed out on it's ass.

I have not offered any opinions, unfounded or otherwise. This is BASIC constitutional law.

I will simply correct you as many times as you need me to.

Your sources didnt apply and used standing. You failed on both counts. You should read my original post. I would have welcomed something that DID support it because all I want is clarification, I dont have a preference either way.

So:

​

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.​

​

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.​

​

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.​

​

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.​

 

[rahl]

Your sources didnt apply and used standing.

Lol

You failed on both counts.

I've shown you why TX law is utterly meaningless, using constitutional law, common law, and even gave you a court case showing you why.

You should read my original post. I would have welcomed something that DID support it because all I want is clarification, I dont have a preference either way.

So:

​

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.​

​

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.​

​

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.​

​

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.​

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone IN TX sue ANYONE for something that happened IN ANOTHER STATE, where that thing is legal in that other state. Due to jurisdiction, and standing.

 

[Lursa]

Lol

I've shown you why TX law is utterly meaningless, using constitutional law, common law, and even gave you a court case showing you why.

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone IN TX sue ANYONE for something that happened IN ANOTHER STATE, where that thing is legal in that other state. Due to jurisdiction, and standing.

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.

 

[rahl]

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.

I've already sourced it

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone IN TX sue ANYONE for something that happened IN ANOTHER STATE, where that thing is legal in that other state. Due to jurisdiction, and standing.

 

[Lursa]

I've already sourced it

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone IN TX sue ANYONE for something that happened IN ANOTHER STATE, where that thing is legal in that other state. Due to jurisdiction, and standing.

Repeating it doesnt make it true. You did not source what I asked...now I realize you didnt even understand what I asked but you still have not proven your claim on standing either. Your conclusions on its specific use need to be sourced. As I wrote earlier if you had provided what I was asking about, you wouldnt be typing your ass off over and over, as I would have been happy to accept it.​

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.​

​

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.​

​

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.​

​

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.​

 

[rahl]

Repeating it doesnt make it true. ​

I know. The written record showing you I sourced it does.

You did not source what I asked...now I realize you didnt even understand what I asked but you still have not proven your claim on standing either. Your conclusions on its specific use need to be sourced. As I wrote earlier if you had provided what I was asking about, you wouldnt be typing your ass off over and over, as I would have been happy to accept it.​

Unless you source what I've asked, you've proven nothing and I wont accept it. You just posted more BS about standing.​

​

So keep posting all you want but your argument here is a fail since it's nothing but "it's in the Const" and your opinion.​

​

Not sure how to make this any clearer to you but you repeating your unfounded opinions is not a successful argument...ever.​

​

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.​

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone IN TX sue ANYONE for something that happened IN ANOTHER STATE, where that thing is legal in that other state. Due to jurisdiction, and standing. I even gave you a court case to this effect.