• 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!

Women's Health Protection Act

Nickyjo said:
The Act did away with state rules on voting. Wasn’t the point being discussed whether the federal government has the authority to overrule state laws?
Click to expand...
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
 
lwf said:
The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause are used to get around the 10th Amendment all the time. Hell, the federal government could argue that any state that outlaws abortion after Roe is overturned is affecting the interstate healthcare market, and therefore federal law would have supremacy over state laws. The Supreme Court has upheld these arguments in the past.
Click to expand...

The so-called Supremacy Clause only applies to perview applicable to the federal government.

As clearly stated by the 10th....the rest belongs elsewhere.

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.

The fact that Douglas and Blackmun didn't know this isn't our problem.

This court apparently does.
 
Nickyjo said:
The Act did away with state rules on voting. Wasn’t the point being discussed whether the federal government has the authority to overrule state laws?
Click to expand...

The federal government (yes, the clownshow in Washington D.C. with head clowns Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Pelosi at center ring) are constantly overstepping their bounds. And the courts are constantly putting them in their place (or were).

That was certainly the case in the early 1930's.

Now that we have justices who will follow the constitution, you can expect to see some of that set back in order.
 
NatMorton said:
I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
With the current joke of a court it almost certainly will be.
 
Mycroft said:
This is just pissed off Democrats reacting...without thinking.

1. Yes, if this bill were somehow passed, it would immediately end up in court and eventually get to the Supremes. They would find this unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

On what basis would they find it unconstitutional?

Mycroft said:
2. But the bill will never be passed. It would need the filibuster to be removed...and there are two Democrats who say that won't happen.
Click to expand...

Heard from Collins and Murkowski lately?

Mycroft said:
3. Psaki says that even if the filibuster is removed, there STILL are not enough votes to get the bill passed.

So...those people who are reacting...without thinking...are wasting their time.
Click to expand...
 
HikerGuy83 said:
The so-called Supremacy Clause only applies to perview applicable to the federal government.

As clearly stated by the 10th....the rest belongs elsewhere.

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.

The fact that Douglas and Blackmun didn't know this isn't our problem.

This court apparently does.
Click to expand...


This is a fantasy of the far right... How many justices does the constitution prescribe?
 
HikerGuy83 said:
You don't know ?

You have not read it either.
Click to expand...


LMAO... Afraid to answer the question? Who determines the number of justices on the supreme court?
 
NatMorton said:
Agreed, but for discussion's sake, let's say it restores the same federal abortion ban restrictions that Roe and Casey have had in place.
Click to expand...

I don't think it really can.
 
NatMorton said:
I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

The current Court would have no problem issuing a completely contradictory ruling than what it has previously stated; that kind of bizarre logic and nonsensical rulings have become the standard for the Roberts Court.
 
aociswundumho said:
Yes, "they do it all the time" is an excellent way to determine constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's this thing called precedent.

I get that to originalists precedent is only relevant when convenient, but still.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The current Court would have no problem issuing a completely contradictory ruling than what it has previously stated; that kind of bizarre logic and nonsensical rulings have become the standard for the Roberts Court.
Click to expand...

Legal arguments aren't emotional arguments.
 
lwf said:
Just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean the federal government lacks the authority to overrule state laws regarding that thing. It does this all the time.
Click to expand...
Maybe the federal government should stop doing that? I mean just an idea.
 
lwf said:
The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause are used to get around the 10th Amendment all the time. Hell, the federal government could argue that any state that outlaws abortion after Roe is overturned is affecting the interstate healthcare market, and therefore federal law would have supremacy over state laws. The Supreme Court has upheld these arguments in the past.
Click to expand...
If this the case, is there any justification for the left's hair on fire now?
Not seeing that there is, beyond a life ring for them for the midterms, so AKA emotionally manipulating the electorate rather than reason, as they always they always do. 🤷‍♂️
 
HikerGuy83 said:
The federal government (yes, the clownshow in Washington D.C. with head clowns Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Pelosi at center ring) are constantly overstepping their bounds. And the courts are constantly putting them in their place (or were).

That was certainly the case in the early 1930's.

Now that we have justices who will follow the constitution, you can expect to see some of that set back in order.
Click to expand...
As Hamlet put it, the 10th Amendment has been “more honored in the breach than in the observance.” I have to assume that sometime someone sued to stop some federal action, using the Tenth. But can you name a case or decision?
 
Nickyjo said:
As Hamlet put it, the 10th Amendment has been “more honored in the breach than in the observance.” I have to assume that sometime someone sued to stop some federal action, using the Tenth. But can you name a case or decision?
Click to expand...

I think the decision to overturn Roe may be the first (if it actually happens).
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The current Court would have no problem issuing a completely contradictory ruling than what it has previously stated; that kind of bizarre logic and nonsensical rulings have become the standard for the Roberts Court.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read Roe ????

Talk about stupid, moronic, twisted, disjointed and nonsensical......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom