Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Are you a professional fool,or is this just something you do for a hobby?

The FOCUS here is on child mutilation,NOT politics,you freaking idiot! Take your partisan politics BS,roll them into a fine tube,and stick them in your ear until blood starts pouring.

Go back to DU. They must be short a few dummies by now,and they probably miss you.

I’m not the one demanding that the federal government enact my every wish into law, the way you and most liberals do. 

What is the basis on which Congress has the authority to outlaw child abuse?

DU would be a much better fit for you and your wish to use the federal government to enact your fondest wishes even if the constitution doesn’t grant Congress the authority. 

[TomSea]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

@Chosen Daughter  ,  I think you are one of the smartest people here.

I do note,  there has been legislation and a movement in recent years to legislate on circumcision.

This with FGM is about federal law. Generally, things should be left up to the states.

An article was posted for discussion and I think it can be discussed. From what I know, states do legislate most criminal and other matters,  say burglary or what have you. But it's not a big deal, states should handle these matters in most cases.

Then again, there are some issues that have necessitated federal action but I am not sure if this rises up to that threshold. Some states, all states legislated alcohol to a degree.

[TomSea]

Here is an interesting discussion on this, this Ayaan Hirsi Ali is something like a Muslim or former Muslim who made a film which she got threatened over on Islam. I think she lived in the Netherlands.

https://twitter.com/Ayaan/status/1065145200538873857

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
‏Verified account @Ayaan

These are children; little girls; between the ages of 2 to 8; they have no idea and from one moment to the next they are held down by people they love. And then chop! Parts of their genitalia are gone! The law must protect them! PLEASE.
11:29 PM - 20 Nov 2018

Then, some commentary, one can follow it for themselves.

[TomSea]

The Judge Was Right: It’s States’ Job, Not The Feds’, To Outlaw Female Genital Mutilation
It should go without saying that FGM is a horrific form of child abuse. That said, Bernard Friedman reached the correct legal conclusion in dismissing the FGM and conspiracy charges.

...

It should go without saying that FGM is a horrific procedure and when inflicted on a minor constitutes a grievous form of child abuse. That said, Friedman reached the correct legal conclusion in dismissing the FGM and conspiracy charges. Here’s why.

The federal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers and thus may only criminalize (or regulate) conduct if granted authority to do so in the U.S. Constitution. Abuse or assault are part of the criminal law, and the heart of state power. The federal government could criminalize transporting girls across state lines to obtain FGM, but the federal statute under which the defendants were prosecuted does not do so now, so this is currently a matter for the states. While Michigan was remiss in not having a law against this, it cannot be applied retroactively

The government argued Congress had the power to criminalize FGM based on two distinct theories. First, the government argued that Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the federal Constitution, which gives the president “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,” provided Congress the authority to criminalize FGM.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/21/judge-right-states-job-not-feds-outlaw-female-genital-mutilation/

[sneakypete]

I’m not the one demanding that the federal government enact my every wish into law, the way you and most liberals do. 

You are the one that is a clueless fool.

What is the basis on which Congress has the authority to outlaw child abuse?

Are you trying to claim Congress doesn't have the authority to enact a national law against the sexual mutilation of children?

[sneakypete]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

 

I do note,  there has been legislation and a movement in recent years to legislate on circumcision.

 

@TomSea

Tom,there is no comparison between male and female circumcision. One is primarily harmless with some health benefits,and the other is full of serious complications that can even lead to all sort of painful problems. There is just no way that can be allowed in a civilized society.

[roamer_1]

Yet another Federal district court judge GREATLY exceeding his authority!  When will this idiocy be stopped?

Your point aside, at it's root this question is not so easy. How does one address ritual 'female genital mutilation' differently than ritual male circumcision?

This is really a sticky wicket. 

[roamer_1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

@Chosen Daughter  ,  I think you are one of the smartest people here.

I do note,  there has been legislation and a movement in recent years to legislate on circumcision.

Therein lies the tar baby.

This with FGM is about federal law. Generally, things should be left up to the states.

That's right.

[berdie]

I didn't know that there was a law to insist on male circumcision. I thought it was a parental decision?  Sure..it is accepted practice, but I thought there was an "opt out" clause.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So, where does the Constitution give the federal government control over simple assault?  Where is the federal issue?

If you believe the federal government is controlled by that logic, then you are a bigger fool than everyone on this board realizes.

[Oceander]

If you believe the federal government is controlled by that logic, then you are a bigger fool than everyone on this board realizes.

I may be a fool, but at least I’m not an irrational hypocrite like you.  One who goes on and on about the rule of law, but only so long as it fits your preconceived prejudices; but when it suits, the rule of law goes out the window with you. 

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power of authority to criminalize simple assault?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I may be a fool, but at least I’m not an irrational hypocrite like you.  One who goes on and on about the rule of law, but only so long as it fits your preconceived prejudices; but when it suits, the rule of law goes out the window with you. 

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power of authority to criminalize simple assault?

Where does the Constitution allow the federal government to do a few things like these examples?

1) dictate school curriculum, testing, lunch menus and transgender use of bathrooms and locker rooms;

2) prohibit mining and burning of coal;

3) regulate ditches and canals as "waters of the U.S.";

4) revoke accreditation of colleges whose standards are not "politically correct";

5) force private religious employers to provide contraceptive services;

6) dictate overtime pay in private employment;

7) revoke tax-exemptions for nonconforming religious beliefs;

8) protect wildlife that damages property or threatens domestic livestock;

9) force one-size-fits-all health care plans;

10) limit use of public lands;

Lots of others abound.

You are the irrational one if you believe the federal government cowtows to the states.

[Oceander]

Where does the Constitution allow the federal government to do a few things like these examples?

1) dictate school curriculum, testing, lunch menus and transgender use of bathrooms and locker rooms;

2) prohibit mining and burning of coal;

3) regulate ditches and canals as "waters of the U.S.";

4) revoke accreditation of colleges whose standards are not "politically correct";

5) force private religious employers to provide contraceptive services;

6) dictate overtime pay in private employment;

7) revoke tax-exemptions for nonconforming religious beliefs;

8) protect wildlife that damages property or threatens domestic livestock;

9) force one-size-fits-all health care plans;

10) limit use of public lands;

Lots of others abound.

You are the irrational one if you believe the federal government cowtows to the states.

School matters are handled through the spending power - as you should know, if you know half the law you pretend to know, the spending power is plenary and the Congress can attach as many strings as it pleases.  You want federal funds for local schools, then you must dance the tune the federal devil calls.

Mining and burning coal are both eminently economic activities, and necessarily take place using the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and are therefore amenable to federal control through the commerce clause, at the least.

Ditches and canals - certainly to the extent they are navigable, the Commerce Clause

Employment - duh, that is clear economic activity and therefore obviously under the Commerce Clause

I'd continue, but why bother, because you clearly are just as bad as a liberal:  if the law doesn't meet with your ideological sentiments, then the law is to be ignored at will.

You are a hypocrite and a pharisee, loudly proclaiming your desire to be governed by the rule of law, but abandoning that sentiment the moment it conflicts with your ideology.

Pathetic.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The judge's ruling did not say this mutilation was not a crime.  He concluded it was not a federal crime.  A summary of Congressional power to make criminal law is included below.  Michigan has passed a law criminalizing this abuse, but did so after the defendants were arrested so the law could not be applied to them.

The prosecution's reliance on proving this was a federal crime was a Hail Mary Pass.  They did include an argument that this was a federal crime because it was interstate.  The judge rejected this too ---- and this decision is the one that may end up in an appellate court.

Designating this mutilation a crime is the jurisdiction of the states.  27 states currently outlaw FGM---it should be 50.  More info on the judge's decision can be found in this editorial @IsailedawayfromFR  :  http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/21/judge-right-states-job-not-feds-outlaw-female-genital-mutilation/

In the American criminal justice system, most prosecutions occur at the state level in municipal or county courts. The federal government exercises jurisdiction over criminal matters when the states lack jurisdiction, including areas specifically reserved to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, and over criminal offenses that occur on federal property. Federal authorities may also prosecute certain crimes that, while normally handled by the states, become federal offenses by crossing from one state to another.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the federal government, through Congress, exclusive authority over certain issues, such as bankruptcy, immigration, patents, the Postal Service, and coining and regulating money. Federal courts therefore have the exclusive authority, known as “subject matter jurisdiction,” to consider criminal cases involving these matters, which might include fraud offenses relating to bankruptcy, mail fraud using the U.S. Mail, criminal immigration cases, and money counterfeiting.

Congress has constitutional authority over taxation under the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, which enables federal prosecutions for tax evasion and tax fraud. The Fourteenth Amendment gives the federal government jurisdiction over prosecutions for civil rights violations.

The Commerce Clause, also found in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the authority “to regulate Commerce . . . among the  several States.” This has been used as the basis for a substantial amount of legislation regarding criminal law, as discussed more below.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/other-crimes/federal-crimes/

[jmyrlefuller]

I’m not the one demanding that the federal government enact my every wish into law, the way you and most liberals do. 

What is the basis on which Congress has the authority to outlaw child abuse?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

School matters are handled through the spending power - as you should know, if you know half the law you pretend to know, the spending power is plenary and the Congress can attach as many strings as it pleases.  You want federal funds for local schools, then you must dance the tune the federal devil calls.

Mining and burning coal are both eminently economic activities, and necessarily take place using the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and are therefore amenable to federal control through the commerce clause, at the least.

Ditches and canals - certainly to the extent they are navigable, the Commerce Clause

Employment - duh, that is clear economic activity and therefore obviously under the Commerce Clause

I'd continue, but why bother, because you clearly are just as bad as a liberal:  if the law doesn't meet with your ideological sentiments, then the law is to be ignored at will.

You are a hypocrite and a pharisee, loudly proclaiming your desire to be governed by the rule of law, but abandoning that sentiment the moment it conflicts with your ideology.

Pathetic.

Pathetic inconsistency is the hallmark of your comment.

[Oceander]

Pathetic inconsistency is the hallmark of your comment.

Thank you for conceding and admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Oceander]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

Did you even bother to look that provision up?  Here’s what it says:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

So, where does that provision grant the power to criminalize child abuse?

Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thank you for conceding and admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So sorry, you are consistent in your rabid inconsistency.

One time you honor state rights purview, then another time when convenient you honor the federal law-of-the-land in all matters.

Killing an unborn child to you is clearly a federal jurisdiction but refraining from the mutilation of children is not.

You are incoherent.

[Oceander]

So sorry, you are consistent in your rabid inconsistency.

One time you honor state rights purview, then another time when convenient you honor the federal law-of-the-land in all matters.

Killing an unborn child to you is clearly a federal jurisdiction but refraining from the mutilation of children is not.

You are incoherent.

Not incoherent at all.  You’re just too stupid to grasp the issues and the differences.  That

[TomSea]

So sorry, you are consistent in your rabid inconsistency.

One time you honor state rights purview, then another time when convenient you honor the federal law-of-the-land in all matters.

Killing an unborn child to you is clearly a federal jurisdiction but refraining from the mutilation of children is not.

You are incoherent.

I agree, I note those two differences as well, states rights in one case, federal in the other...and this does deal with individual rights.

Well, most crimes, say, if I steal a car, auto-theft, is going to be defined by state law.

-----

You are sharp, Isailed....  this is off-topic but months ago, we talked about Libya, that thing. I think it came off the wrong way. In no way, would I doubt your experience and knowledge on that topic. There is no reason to go into that here. I just thought you should know that. You clearly know a lot about this, especially per the "oil patch". but that is all I have to say about this.

I won't go to far off topic, I don't know personally, when the SCOTUS needs to intervene, save for matters where a state appears to be wrong or in a questionable position. Say, something like polygamy being practiced in Utah for example. There are not that many cases where the Feds should step in. Nowadays, I don't know if they should stop, say polygamy on a widescale but I'm glad they do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Pathetic inconsistency is the hallmark of your comment.

No @IsailedawayfromFR -- how the hell wrong can you be?   I quoted the Constitution of the U.S,

I just don't understand why you want to belabor this with endless debate when the Constitution says the states have the power to outlaw this abuse and 27 states already have. 

Why the hell, as a Conservative, are you trying so hard to make this a federal government issue?  Has not the federal government enough say over our lives?

Why aren't you up in arms demanding the 23 states yet to outlaw this abuse do so?

Who are you ... the new conservative-lite?

[jmyrlefuller]

Not incoherent at all.  You’re just too stupid to grasp the issues and the differences.  That

And with that ad hominem, you just lost the debate. Bye Felicia

[txradioguy]

So sorry, you are consistent in your rabid inconsistency.

One time you honor state rights purview, then another time when convenient you honor the federal law-of-the-land in all matters.

Killing an unborn child to you is clearly a federal jurisdiction but refraining from the mutilation of children is not.

You are incoherent.

That's because O is like all Liberals...he bases his views on emotions and feelings rather than facts and reality.

[Oceander]

And with that ad hominem, you just lost the debate. Bye Felicia

Not an ad hominem, an insult in reply to an insult.  Get it straight, Nancy-girl.