Liberal-Patriot t1_ixnehyz wrote
Reply to comment by mexheavymetal in France moves closer to making abortion a constitutional right by Lakerlion
Those aren't U.S. laws. Those are state laws.
And there are even more restrictive European laws restricting abortion. Which is one of my points.
Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixnnxdr wrote
Several of them are US laws. Any Texas citizen that gets an abortion, anywhere in the US or world, can be jailed for up to 99 years along with everyone that helped them, even if they(those that helped them) are not Texas citizens.
That's a law effecting the entire US, passed by a single state, because the US does not enshrine human rights in its constitution.
Dufresne85 t1_ixo9jyj wrote
The first time they go after an out of state citizen for this is when that law will be slapped down. States don't get jurisdiction outside of state lines.
mexheavymetal t1_ixo9wgu wrote
On that note, if anyone in Texas needs help getting an abortion in PA hmu
Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixoan42 wrote
You really hope so. We fought a civil war last time states tried to enforce laws over state lines, but never really codified that anywhere that that's not allowed.
Modern police departments were formed from the former slave catcher departments; and let's face it, modern police are just as loyal to the state and anti-Citizen as they always have been.
It's nice to think that the law will get slapped down, but realistically for the woman that is first captured and deported back to Texas to 'stand trial,' she's got a hell of an uphill battle if she's even captured alive.
With this Supreme Court going in the exact same direction as the rulings that lead up to the civil war, it's not really clear what will happen.
RomieTheEeveeChaser t1_ixoys4x wrote
Canadian here. I was taught that that war was entirely about slavery and the U.S did encode it with a single NWS Clause at the end?
Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixpm5jm wrote
The war was primarily about slavery, but more importantly the attempt from Southern States to codify the legality of slave-catchers in Northern States;
A specific tl;dr is slaves in the South increasingly were able to escape North; as they got to states where they were people, not property, they had all the inalienable rights of free men -- this meant that the state they escaped from could not compel them to return legally.
That did not stop them from trying -- resulting in kidnapping and clashes between local security forces (anything from port authority to sheriffs to the local militia) and slave catchers were becoming increasingly common. The South had one simple ultimatum -- all slaves were to be considered property unless explicitly freed, no matter where they were in the US. They would not budge on this, at all, which pushed Northerners to continue to exert their (at the time) right to secure their state and refuse to work out a 'compromise' federally that left them with less power.
This, along with the thought among the South that just threatening to secede would be enough to to get them to comply (they erroneously thought they contributed more economically and militarily to the US than the North did, so they thought the US would collapse without them), and then the North basically said "fucking do it, pussies." With the federal government really upset with both parties for refusing to compromise on, you know, the definition of a person.
After the South was defeated so badly that their already poor socioeconomics were simply worse than developing colonies at the time there was a compromise on slavery -- the 14th bans slavery except as a punishment for a crime (which is why the modern day south has roughly double the number of inmates as the former North, and also why red states now tend to have a significantly higher non-white prison population than other states).
The federal government also reasserted its dominance in matters related to interstate justice by establishing the first federal prisons shortly after the war, but this is widely considered to be just a way to cash in on federally legal slaves. Officially the federal government handles people that commit a crime in one state and then leave to another state if the law is also a federal crime, like murder; but it is still within each state to recognize out of state warrants for crimes that do not have a federal counterpart, and to that end the federal government does not interfere with those matters (possibly in any way, as in a state cannot compel another to accept a warrant, but the matter at hand, one state sending agents to another to arrest someone without permission of the host state hasn't been tried in a very long time.)
If there is precedence on the matter, it would be in SCOTUS' wheelhouse as, as far as I'm aware, there are no laws at the federal level stopping this -- and with SCOTUS' current makeup being close to that before the civil war, I wouldn't put it past them to basically force the issue into being legal with no recourse, which may result in direct interstate violence.
RomieTheEeveeChaser t1_ixppgzq wrote
Ah, thank you for taking the time to make such an informative response I really appreciate it.
This is all really facinating. We don't get a good perspective on all of the little dohikkies of what the South and North of the U.S wanted/their motivations which drove them to war other than one side is pro-slaves and the other not so this was amazing.
I'll admit to being kind of thick so I'm not sure if this was intentional or not on your part but it seems like you're hinting that modern history may be rhyming and within its first stanza with regards to how southern states may be chasing after women getting abortions over state lines in the future mirroring how they chased after their run away slaves in the past. Is this idea a common worry within contemporary American politics and steps are being taken by leadership to avoid it or do you think it's already too far gone and it's going to come to massive arms before a resolution is found?
Sorry, you don't have to answer that but your response was so well written I kind of just got curious. Thank you though~
Timely_Position_5015 t1_ixoaw6a wrote
> We fought a civil war last time states tried to enforce laws over state lines
We’ll do it again if we have to.
Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixobtco wrote
You hope. For any one in a civil war to win you need the active military split or entirely on their side. If Republicans control all three branches at the federal level, the best you can hope for is a split, and even that's pretty unlikely if you've ever talked to an active duty marine or soldier, almost all of whom vote republican until they get out and experience the VA.
Timely_Position_5015 t1_ixod0v9 wrote
All will do what they have to do if it comes to that.
Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixoewbg wrote
Given the increasing number and severity of hate-crime based mass shootings that are actively been praised by right-wing media; People already are.
Timely_Position_5015 t1_ixofex6 wrote
We take the high road; we will wait until the correlation is undeniable.
Let’s breathe and keep our eyes wide open.
Dufresne85 t1_ixob5gl wrote
That would require a state to deport her, which isn't impossible especially if she was a Texas citizen. But to get the people that helped deported will never happen unless they have other warrants. Even the super conservative states don't want to give authority over their constituents to another state's government. For whomever ends up having to fight that nonsense it'll be a nightmare and legislators who knowingly pass blatantly unconstitutional laws need to be heavily penalized and removed from office.
AlexandersWonder t1_ixol8ii wrote
If they tried enforcing that, the law would quickly be slapped down for unconstitutionality. I kind of think they know better than to try for that reason, it’s just political scarecrow with no teeth in that regard. States don’t have the right to legislate citizens of other states. I’m not sure they can even really enforce the law on Texans who get abortion elsewhere. You can’t be arrested in a state where marijuana is illegal because you smoked weed in a legal state, it’s the same idea, well, sort of.
Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixpmezb wrote
Unconstitutionality, as we have well found out recently starting this whole mess is a meaningless phrase.
SCOTUS determines what is constitutional and what isn't. Not the constitution. Not any other part of the federal government. It takes 2/3rds majority of both houses to remove a SCOTUS judge, so there is effectively no balance of power, so they can decide what they like without any effective possible recourse as long as it aligns with at least one of the two major party platforms.
There is no guarantee, that despite its unconstitutionality, that it will be ruled that way. We've just found out there's no right to privacy in the constitution, and there's no guarantee for anything in our Miranda rights. It turns out quite a lot of things we thought were in the constitution weren't, it was just SCOTUS making up shit, to quote the Robert's court.
Liberal-Patriot t1_ixob5if wrote
:rubs temples:
The law you're attempting to reference has no criminal penalty. It's a possible law suit, which hasn't been tested in court.
In short that is a non-threat. It's unenforceable, red meat, appealing to the political base nonsense which is sadly typical of every politician.
A better example is what California does to emissions or safety standards in this country. By forcing companies to adopt THEIR laws, they force the company to change their entire product everywhere...but I digress.
AlexandersWonder t1_ixonfgs wrote
I mean, that’s just capitalism. They aren’t mandating what other states do. They’re only regulating what companies do in their own state. Companies are more than free to just not sell their products in California and then aren’t bound by the regulations in California. But capitalism being capitalism, companies will choose to meet the regulations, because California is one of the largest economies in the world and they stand to make a lot more money by doing business there. And since it’s generally cheaper to make all their products the same instead of specializing a portion of their products for California only, products in other states end up conforming to the regulations incidentally.
The Texas law, on the other hand, is attempting to impose its legislation on other states and the people in them, instead of on companies that are doing business within their borders. The California regulations does not impact the laws and regulations of another state. It does impact how companies behave in other states, but only because they really really want to do business in California and it’s just easier to make all of their products conform to the standard instead of making California-only products just for them. I would maybe compare it with the way that media companies would conform to Chinese censorship in their movies, games, etc, because the Chinese market is absolutely huge and they stood to make an absolute killing by conforming. Companies will always choose to make as much money as they can, and that’s just capitalism. The Texas law is an entirely different beast and it’s probably constitutionally unenforceable for the most part.
Liberal-Patriot t1_ixromc6 wrote
That isn't Capitalism at all. Lol. I'm not reading your book when you get it so wrong right of the gate. Is fraud Capitalism? No. Is a Ponzi scheme Capitalism? No sir.
That's California using their market share to bully everyone.
mexheavymetal t1_ixo9shk wrote
States of which country?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments