Utopia Talk / Politics / MAGAliban: stop women from leaving state

murder Member	Thu Jun 30 13:04:23 Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines Some advocacy groups and their allies are crafting legislative language that could be adopted in Republican-led state capitals. Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions. The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the antiabortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court struck down its 49-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide, triggering abortion bans across much of the Southeast and Midwest. The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation. The subject was much discussed at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing these kinds of bills in their own states. The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council. “Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.” The Biden Justice Department has already warned states that it would fight such laws, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce. In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue. Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law. Not every antiabortion group is on board with the idea. Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that people access medical procedures across state lines all the time. “I don’t think you can prevent that,” she said. While some antiabortion groups aspire to push Congress to pass a national abortion ban, restricting movement across state lines would represent another step in limiting the number of abortions performed in the United States. These kinds of bills could be proposed even before state legislatures reconvene for their regular 2023 legislative sessions, said Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert (R). His home state, he said, may soon address this issue in an already planned special session. Another Arkansas senator, he said, has expressed interest in introducing that legislation. “Many of us have supported legislation to stop human trafficking,” said Rapert, president of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “So why is there a pass on people trafficking women in order to make money off of aborting their babies?” In a television interview over the weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) left the door open to restricting out-of-state abortions in her state, where a trigger ban took effect as soon as Roe was overturned. The governor, who has called a special session to discuss abortion legislation, said the topic may be debated in South Dakota in the future. Dale Bartscher, the executive director of South Dakota Right to Life, the leading antiabortion organization in South Dakota, said he was “very interested” in stopping South Dakota residents from accessing abortion in other states. “I’ve heard that bantered about across the state of South Dakota,” he said, though he would not discuss the goal of the upcoming special session. The idea to restrict out-of-state abortions surfaced earlier this year, when Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), who is special counsel at the Thomas More Society, proposed legislation that relied on the Texas-style enforcement mechanism. While Coleman’s bill failed to pass in the 2022 legislative session, Coleman said she has heard from multiple lawmakers and antiabortion advocates in other states who are eager to pursue similar legislation. The issue is particularly pertinent in Coleman’s home state of Missouri, which outlawed abortion with a trigger ban that took effect within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision. As many as 14,000 people are expected to flood into southern Illinois this year, including thousands of Missouri residents, according to Planned Parenthood. Several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that try to restrict movement across state lines. Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protections from antiabortion laws that try to reach into other states. The measure would shield people from out-of-state summonses or subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent Connecticut authorities from adhering to another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut. “Legislators in [antiabortion] states have made clear that their intent is not only to ban abortion within their own state’s borders, but to ban it in states where it is expressly permitted,” Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal (D) said in an interview in April. California passed a similar law Thursday, aiming to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits. The Justice Department has already signaled its intention to fight against these kinds of laws in court. In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe “does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.” That declaration suggests that if a particular state did pass a law seeking to prevent women from traveling across state lines to receive an abortion, the Justice Department might file court papers opposing such a law. That strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in the Justice Department’s opposition to the Texas law limiting many abortions, but any new state law that involved interstate travel could raise additional legal questions for the courts. Garland argued that the Constitution was unequivocal on the legality of crossing state lines for medical treatment. “We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” Garland said, adding that the First Amendment safeguards anyone who offers information or counseling about “reproductive care that is available in other states.” A Justice Department spokesman did not elaborate on the attorney general’s statement. David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor who has studied these kinds of proposals, noted that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh addressed interstate travel in a separate concurring opinion he wrote along with the ruling to overturn Roe, where he specified that people could not be prosecuted for out-of-state abortions. But Kavanaugh’s concurrence does not address the civil enforcement strategy that is gaining traction among antiabortion groups, Cohen said. “This is going to create state-against-state and state-against-federal chaos that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time.” http://www...22/06/29/abortion-state-lines/
Habebe Member	Thu Jun 30 13:39:16 One of the women escaped http://twi...?t=zpvpB12SCYsjyMJhsj8epA&s=19
Habebe Member	Thu Jun 30 13:39:17 One of the women escaped http://twi...?t=zpvpB12SCYsjyMJhsj8epA&s=19
murder Member	Thu Jun 30 13:45:15 Nice deflection.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 30 14:18:31 This was settled in the 19th century, the 14th amendment overturned Dred Scott. We literally had a civil war over this, why is it coming up again? Once a woman steps foot in a free state and breathes free air, she gets the standard basket of civil rights everyone else gets in that free state, and those civil rights are not stripped away should she return to non-free soil. Congress has the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this. I also note that these fine upstanding Christian men are not extending this to prostitution and gambling, I can only assume they are hedging against their own trips to Vegas and Thailand, both of which are free country.
murder Member	Thu Jun 30 15:11:24 "This was settled in the 19th century, the 14th amendment overturned Dred Scott. We literally had a civil war over this, why is it coming up again?" Because the GOP wants to turn the clock all the way back. They want blacks in the field under a whip, they want other colored people deported or killed, they want women to be the property of and subject to the will of first their fathers and then their husbands, and they want gays and trans people terrorized and closeted.
Habebe Member	Thu Jun 30 15:20:15 Murder always with the dramatics. This is government over reach though. Clear and simple, they lack legal authority over a citizen outside their state. I dont see any legal argument that even comes close to supporting otherwise. The closest might be from out of state usury laws, but even then its about the collection while they are in their home state that's the issue, so jurisdiction applies at the point of collection. For example, a PA citizen can go to Delaware and get a title loan on a car. Once back in PA the loan company is forbidden to collect interest on that loan from a PA citizen.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 30 15:36:51 "Clear and simple, they lack legal authority over a citizen outside their state." Presumably there will be efforts to allow private citizens to sue, and then limit who has standing to counter-sue, and who they can counter-sue. The Texas approach that was upheld by the supreme court a few months ago. Which, incidentally, gets us right back to Dred Scott where the court held that the person in question simply had no standing to sue. Instead of ruling either way on the question at hand, it's legality, etc, you simply play fuck fuck games with who has the standing to sue who, and who doesn't. Which, also incidentally, could be used to abridge gun rights. "It's not that it's illegal to own anything but a single shot musket, it's merely that if you do own one, any citizen in the state can sue you for $10k per violation..."
Habebe Member	Thu Jun 30 16:07:20 EP, OIC.... That doesn't seem technically feasible. I mean, im not even debating the legalities which seem suspect. But in practical terms the information needed to sue would presumably be withheld making it futile even under prepondersnce of evidence standards. Trump should just step up and tell them to drop it and take the win they've got. Its also a bad look to go after pregnant women. Primarily the anti abortion crowd has gone after the doctors.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 30 16:13:28 "in practical terms the information needed to sue would presumably be withheld making it futile even under prepondersnce of evidence standards." Not if facebook messages and text messages are admissible. The abusive boyfriend with an axe to grind. "Its also a bad look to go after pregnant women." The conservative movement hasn't relied on chasing a majority of the vote for some time.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 30 16:15:07 The abusive 24 year old ex boyfriend with an axe to grind, paired with the dumb emotional 19 year old ex girlfriend trying to rub it in. (Birds of a feather flock together.)
kargen Member	Thu Jun 30 16:26:20 They aren't even going to be able to prevent women from mail ordering the morning after pill. No way they are going to be able to stop those who want an abortion from going to another state. I'm guessing someone tries to sue for helping another get an abortion that case will rise quickly through the courts and be tossed.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jun 30 21:38:55 This country is lead by retards. This sort of fuckery should see the republicans voted out, but dems are so retarded you cant vote for them either.
Y2A Member	Thu Jun 30 22:46:05 are they going to demand a modern day fugitive slave act?
nhill Member	Thu Jun 30 22:47:14 Yep, our two party system has churned out two absolute turds, and dumbasses keep trying to play party politics. It's embarrassing. Anyone with an ounce of critical thought should be beyond that by now.
nhill Member	Thu Jun 30 22:47:56 ^in response to Sam Adams, not Y2A
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 02:46:37 And then there is Seattle, where a man seemingly was arrested for reading the Bible in a public park and refusing to leave.... http://twi...?t=ujp2rKrDxOjhKywcIgpmWA&s=19
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 03:04:58 I say seemingly, because there could be more to the story. But it is Seattle....
kargen Member	Fri Jul 01 03:26:40 http://pro...ped-and-thrown-in-porta-potty/ More on the bible reading guy.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Fri Jul 01 03:36:06 "Shut the fuck up, dude, you are here just to be divisive" - spoken to a dude reading an ancient text with a megaphone in an otherwise quiet area, who randomly says "hate crime" every sentence or five, with fake crying along the way (he never went to acting school, probably b/c libtards teach it). Is that an incorrect statement?
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 04:13:32 I don't know if a pride parade would be considered a quiet area. They shouldn't have stolen his book, and destroyed it. If the megaphone was the issue (not sure it was) why not just confiscate the megaphone until later? But sure, the queers are the marginalized community....so marginalized.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 04:22:46 Have you guys not heard of the demographic collapse? Obviously the artificial womb tech, isn’t where we want it to be and we still need women. This isn’t a permanent solution, so everybody calm down. We are not going full Hand Maiden’s tale permanently, it will only be transitory until we have womb technology.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 04:37:13 I can't tell if nim is being satirical or not. But I was just going to come here and say it's really interesting how the US Right complains about judicial overreach and legislating from the bench, until such time it has a super majority and suddenly they are like kids in the sweetshop. Regulating guns? Nah government overreach. Regulating reproductive health? It would be governments overreach to stop states govts from creating intrusive regulation. States courts stopping state legislatures gerrymandering? No, that's judicial overreach.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 05:02:57 Seb, Its very simple. The USC directly gives authority to state legislatures, not states*** to regulate federal elections. If the SL derives authority from the USC how can a state SC or even a state constitution overide. The language is plain and clear. The USC clearly refers to states time and time again, so. When it soley referent SL's how can that be confusing? I will grant you that the conservatives on the bench with the exception of Gorsuch did just support government over reach in regards to Oklahoma. The liberals and Gorsuch were in the right there, I don't see how they justify it legally.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 08:42:20 "I can't tell if nim is being satirical or not." That's where we're at.
patom Member	Fri Jul 01 09:52:25 Well I'm guessing that Texas will be more than glad to set up border walls preventing any of their females of breeding age from leaving their state. Of course they will expect all the bordering states to foot the bill for the wall and border crossing check points.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 09:54:04 The guy who harassess women with sexist "go make me a sandwich", because they do not conform to his religiously indoctrinated views of a woman. Oh I am not being sexist for real, I am just using sexist jokes to harass women into compliance with what I think is best for women. It's different when I do it!
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 10:01:14 Nim, It seems to be a semi common attribute among the people who harp on minority/disadvantaged peoples rights that if anyone in that group disagrees with them that "They just dont get it" or they are "brainwashed" etc. And thiu its ok to to mock them. Clarence Thomas for example. Or in this case CC.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 10:15:29 Just to be clear, murder can't tell if I am joking, but I can tell when murder is and isn't. When he is telling CC to "shut up and make me a sandwhich", his intention is to harass and shame her for her opinions. That is not a joke or sarcasm, that is ridiculing an individual to assert dominance. Classic power supression tactic. I didn't single out any specific woman for serving as the broodmare for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, I believe this should apply universally to all woman, above the age 18. In summary, while I believe that it is up to CC to decide if she wants to make sandwiches or not, whatever which way, she should do it while having children. No but this part I am serious. The woke ideology is anti-natalist, anti-human and an evolutionary dead end. We all have to do our part, however we can, to fight it. Wife has officially reen lit the plans for human project no. 3.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 11:06:31 "The guy who harassess women with sexist "go make me a sandwich", because they do not conform to his religiously indoctrinated views of a woman." It can't be harassment to insist that women perform one of their two god given functions. btw the sandwich? Still not ready.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 11:09:14 "It seems to be a semi common attribute among the people who harp on minority/disadvantaged peoples rights that..." It seems a common attribute among people with low self-esteem to want to subjugate people belonging to other groups to validate their own worth.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 11:20:51 "Just to be clear, murder can't tell if I am joking, but I can tell when murder is and isn't. When he is telling CC to "shut up and make me a sandwhich", his intention is to harass and shame her for her opinions. That is not a joke or sarcasm, that is ridiculing an individual to assert dominance. Classic power supression tactic." No that's not it. Maybe if the two of you put your heads together you'll be able to figure it out.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 11:21:43 Murder, Is your self esteem that low?
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Fri Jul 01 11:22:23 "Wife has officially reen lit the plans for human project no. 3." say gudbye 2 ure fredom 4 da next 25 yeers shes gona get fat and ur traped wit 3 screemin helspawns
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 11:25:52 "Murder, Is your self esteem that low?" No, I just hate muslims because they are sub-human.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 12:24:04 murder yea yea yea, you're really mysterious, an enigma. That's it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 12:24:24 I was being sarcastic btw, if that wasn't clear.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 13:52:58 Habebe: "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." Seems pretty fucking clear to me.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 13:53:06 Habebe: "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." Seems pretty fucking clear to me.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 13:54:29 Seb, I think we are on the same page.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 13:58:01 Have you read Michael morely?
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 14:03:41 So, how exactly is it unconstiutional for a state court to enforce congressional regulations of elections again?
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 14:04:56 I mean essentially it sounds like the batshit argument that the judiciary shouldn't enforce election regulations and the legislature is expected to just comply with it without enforcement. That's an ... interesting interpretation. As in utter nonsense.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 14:14:33 "So, how exactly is it unconstiutional for a state court to enforce congressional regulations of elections again?" State courts have no authority over the federal constitution, which is where this authority comes from. That doesn't mean that the federal Congress cant make regulations, they clearly can as you pointed out. If that authority was granted to thebstate and not state legislatures, it would be different. Where would state courts get such authority? Not even a state constitution can over ride a state legislature in this.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 14:16:30 http://youtu.be/Y6FG6zJI1Zo This is a great listen. 46 minutes long. I think Ive aingle handily jumoed thus from 75 views 2 days ago to 108.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 14:21:56 "yea yea yea, you're really mysterious, an enigma." There's one other possibility. ;o)
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 01 14:57:00 Kavanaugh, crazy extremist rape monster that he is, to quote tw, already noted in his concurring that such laws are likely to fail. Interstate travel is a freedom, and the purview of the federal government, not individual states. "judicial overreach" Neither of Seb's examples qualify
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 15:49:07 Kavanaugh, crazy extremist rape monster that he is, says lots of things. His words don't mean much.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:17:19 "Nim, It seems to be a semi common attribute among the people who harp on minority/disadvantaged peoples rights that if anyone in that group disagrees with them that "They just dont get it" or they are "brainwashed" etc. And thiu its ok to to mock them." Yup. Just like how murder doesn't think women can think for themselves, people like that think black people are so stupid they can't think for themselves. Even though the vast majority of black people (including my wife & family, but also personal friends) thinks it's all pointless virtue signaling that doesn't do anything for them. Black people get shunned by so called "free-thinkers", ironically making people with that point of view just as racist than the ones they blame. For example, many black people view African-American culture as a pox on their legacy. They take pride in the kingdoms and empires that were on their ancestral lands, and they are embarrassed about African-American culture. But the virtue signaler crowd wants us to think it's okay to have a culture of drugs and violence. "It wasn't their fault, we need to tolerate them and pander to them. Reparations!" Fuck that shit. But I never will stop finding it funny to see how fast a person like murder shuts up and pisses their pants when trying to talk to my wife about racism. They realize very quickly that they are the racist one in the conversation.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:19:58 "The only thing worse than a white man, is a black woman that agrees with a white man" ^that's the weird sort of twisted racist views people have. and they think they are the non-racist ones, lmfao
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 16:22:58 "But I never will stop finding it funny to see how fast a person like murder shuts up and pisses their pants when trying to talk to my wife about racism." I'd be more than happy to.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:23:34 I may be misrepresenting your views here, murder, as I'm extrapolating from your strong patterns of being sexist on these forums. Please excuse me if race doesn't apply in the same manner, as I'm not talking about you specifically, it's mainly the BLM crowd. Not sure if you're a part of that.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:24:12 >I'd be more than happy to. You would run home crying to mommy.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 16:24:17 If you'll give her the time off that is.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:29:26 She doesn't have any time allotments. I am once again reminding you that women can think for themselves and make their own decisions. At least in my world. In your world, all they are good for is sandwiches. Cute.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 16:39:59 "In your world, all they are good for is sandwiches." That's not true. Besides preparing meals, they are also good for breeding, and taking care of your kids, and doing the housework, and giving you massages. And probably running the bath water and making sure it's just how you like it.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 16:41:36 But I suppose green cards don't come cheap.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:42:45 Yep, that is exactly how you are. Sad! Cute how you demean the occupation of massage therapists there. Do you always look down on people more successful than you?
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:43:16 She had her green card about 20 years before I met her. Keep trying, maybe eventually you'll hit on something. *shrug*
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 16:43:40 Habebe: "State courts have no authority over the federal constitution, which is where this authority comes from" Sorry, state courts aren't allowed to uphold federal law? That's ... interesting.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 16:43:44 I mean it worked out for Melania. She got to be first lady and was able to buy passage for her family to come over too.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 16:44:44 It is inarguable that women are good for breeding, essential one may say. No matter how trivial, I will acknowledge that. What is the problem you have with women who want to breed?
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:47:31 >I mean it worked out for Melania. She got to be first lady and was able to buy passage for her family to come over too. My wife and her family have been in the USA for quite a long time. We are planning on leaving the USA as it's going to collapse this century, not sure why you think they are all clamoring to come here.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:47:57 >What is the problem you have with women who want to breed? He doesn't think women are capable of independent thought.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 16:49:04 In murder's world, if a woman makes a decision it's because they are weak and they were influenced by a man. They are only allowed to make the decisions accordance with murder's worldview, otherwise they've "fallen in with the enemy". Pathological.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 01 16:49:43 This is what I mean by batshit crazy interpretations. State legislatures regulate federal elections, but are superceded by federal law. Arguing that people affected by state executive following laws set by state legislatures contrary to federal law cannot petition the state judiciary for remedy is a crazy nonsense interpretation that's just being asserted because trees states want to gerymander.
murder Member	Fri Jul 01 17:03:00 "In murder's world, if a woman makes a decision it's because they are weak and they were influenced by a man. They are only allowed to make the decisions accordance with murder's worldview, otherwise they've "fallen in with the enemy". Pathological." Slavers have always been fond of house niggers. Sometimes they liked them so much that they made more of them.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 17:14:47 Oh because a woman has dark skin she is a "house n" to you. That explains a lot, and confirms everything above. :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 17:15:10 Tragic as it is, murder is fully radicalized. There is no hope. He can be deprogrammed. It's into the volcano for him. :/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 01 17:15:28 can't*
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 17:16:47 The volcano will deprogram him. You had it right the first time ;)
nhill Member	Fri Jul 01 17:20:19 I don't have that much of a problem with murder's wanton sexism and racism. He's like that old great-uncle/grandpa we all knew growing up spewing racist and sexist stuff, but everyone tolerated and found cute. *pets murder* there, there, grandpa, yes everyone is the enemy, now back to the rocking chair.
Habebe Member	Fri Jul 01 18:25:38 Seb, The issue is that state constitutions, not Gubnatorial appointees etc. Have no authority. State laws supercede state constitutions in this particular instance. Because the laws are passed by the legislature which derives said authority from a higher power. What particular federal dispute are you taking issue with? No one is stopping the US Congress from passing election laws.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Fri Jul 01 19:53:08 "State laws supercede state constitutions in this particular instance. Because the laws are passed by the legislature which derives said authority from a higher power." What?
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 02 00:55:45 Cockbot, Basically state legislatures can not be legally constrained by state constitutions in regards to electiin regulations. The federal constitution and Congress can.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 02 00:57:55 Or I should say, that was The prevailing wisdom until aboutnthe early 1900s and is likely to be reaffirmed soon.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 02 00:57:55 Or I should say, that was The prevailing wisdom until aboutnthe early 1900s and is likely to be reaffirmed soon.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 02 02:28:02 Twisted logic - state constitutions are expressions of state legislature. This is just convenient logic for getting rid of rules against gerrymandering.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 02 02:48:25 Seb, And yet it was the prevailing opinion well up until the 20th century.Backed by case law and precedent. Considering the textualist views of the court and the 2015 AZ case, its likley the SC will side with ISL. If it makes feel better it will probably Barr people from pulling a Desantis again in picking maps. This actually goes way deeper than maps though. Look at all the last minute changes unelected commissions made in 2020. Again, the US Congress can still write laws/regulations regarding federal elections.So I don't see the issue.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jul 02 04:51:11 "Basically state legislatures can not be legally constrained by state constitutions in regards to electiin regulations." But that isn't what your statement said. My point of "what" is that your statement is incorrect. What you are arguing and referring is called the independent state legislature theory. And "legislature" is a subjective term and isn't part of exclusivity in reference to the term. With that said, 'state legislature' does not supercede and can be constrained. That is why in recent years and the previous administration tried to utilize it and certainstate courts rejected the cases. However, there are pushes to inject the ISL as the standard and would dramatically change the fabric of election process. Even the framers of the constitution distrusted such a notion.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 02 05:23:52 "And "legislature" is a subjective term and isn't part of exclusivity in reference to the term" Where else in the constitution do they refer to state legislatures differently? I agree it is not currently the legal doctrine. It had been for the first 100+ years or so. It likely will be again soon. "Even the framers of the constitution distrusted such a notion." What? "However, there are pushes to inject the ISL as the standard and would dramatically change the fabric of election process." By limiting election regulations away from unelected commissions. Desantis wouldn't have been able to decide his state laws under such a doctrine.There is some debate on that meaning whether they have delegation authority and to what level.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jul 02 06:11:11 "Where else in the constitution do they refer to state legislatures differently?" Context means everything. Legislature in the application of ISL, doesn't mean the "state legislature". That is the argument, and it is the main debate. The long understanding of it is referring to the each state's general lawmaking processes. If a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governors veto or referendum, election law can be blocked by the same means. Hence why state courts ensure that laws for federal elections, must comply /with/ their state constitutions. OTOH, those who push for ISL theory reject that reading, and argue that such clauses give 'state legislatures' exclusive and almost absolute power to regulate federal elections. Which means, that legislature would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts wouldn't be able to stop then in reference to federal elections. So no, again, 'state legislature' does not supersede State's Constitution. "What?" Framers of the Constitution did not trust state legislatures to run fair elections. This is based upon the Elections Clause, hence Congress reserves the power to override the abuses of power. Refer to 1787 Constitutional Convention for references. See Mercer and Madison for specifics. "By limiting election regulations away from unelected commissions." Which is bad practice. "Desantis wouldn't have been able to decide his state laws under such a doctrine.There is some debate on that meaning whether they have delegation authority and to what level." Are you referring to the delegation of electors from the power bestowed by the State?
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jul 02 06:20:28 I should rephrase the focus is on the word "legislation", and how it should be understood and utilized. That is why you have ISL theory and why you have small advocacy groups pushing it and why there is still debate over it still to this day.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 02 07:35:05 "Framers of the Constitution did not trust state legislatures to run fair elections. This is based upon the Elections Clause, hence Congress reserves the power to override the abuses of power" This doesn't change in ISL doctrine. If it wasnt meant to just be SL and the state, why would they specify it so? They used the term the state in MANY instances. Not once did they refer to a SL as anything but the SL. Seems open and shut And again, its different to argue you disagree with that as practical policy than it is to say that was not the accepted reading of it up to the 1900s. We can even look at 11 of the 13 State constitutions at the time and see EVERY time they wrote the term SL it meant their state elected congressional body. It would odd to look at the USC and claim that in these two provisions that the term SL has a different meaning, but only in those circumstances. "OTOH, those who push for ISL theory reject that reading, and argue that such clauses give 'state legislatures' exclusive and almost absolute power to regulate federal elections. Which means, that legislature would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts wouldn't be able to stop then in reference to federal elections. So no, again, 'state legislature' does not supersede State's Constitution." This was the reading of that in law for first 100 years plus. I would cite Baldwin V Trout bridge where the state constitution required people to vote in person. The SL passed a law stating they allowed absentee ballots since many were enlisted in the union army and unable to vote in person in their district. The court found that the SL superseded the state constitution.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: