That's because O is like all Liberals...he bases his views on emotions and feelings rather than facts and reality.
Ahh yes, another one from the peanut gallery chimes in. Another one is is clearly not apprised of the various threads being discussed.
Funny how you like to loudly proclaim how committed you are to the rule of law, until it fails to implement your favorite ideological or social programs, at which point you chuck it for authoritarianism.
So, tell me, under what provision of the Constitution does Congress have the power to criminalize simple assault?
This is not about states rights, this is about federal power, and the limits thereof.
Now, I quite clearly pointed out that Congress would have the power to criminalize assault that was facilitated through use of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, an argument that the court here appears to have given short shrift to - a failing which I believe presents a basis for appeal here - so I’m clearly not saying the federal government cannot ever criminalize this sort of conduct. Those who think I am are either liars or ignoramuses, who have either failed to appreciate what I so clearly posted on this very thread in this regard.
As to the issue of abortion, again, it is very clear that the Constitution protects an individual’s liberty and property interests in controlling what happens to, with, and in, the individual’s own body. It is also clear that the Constitution protects those interests from interference by the states as well as by the federal government. Do you gainsay that?
Furthermore, it is quite clear that when a state prohibits a woman from obtaining an abortion, the state is infringing on that woman’s right to liberty and property in her own body.
Finally, under very longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Constitutional rights, even fundamental rights like liberty and property rights in ones own body, can be infringed upon by the government if the government is doing so in order to protect a compelling interest, and even then only if the government’s actions are narrowly drawn. This applies to all rights generally, including rights that have nothing to do with abortion.
This, too, has nothing to do with states rights or federal power, but with the limitations the Constitution places on both states and the federal government in order to protect the rights of the individual.
A state has no right to infringe upon the fundamental rights of an individual except in conformity with the foregoing. And that applies whether or not the right in question relates to abortion.
The issue for contention then is simple: is prohibiting an abortion prior to the time the fetus is viable based on a compelling state interest, and is it sufficiently narrowly drawn to accomplish that goal?
The Supreme Court’s answer, which has been explicit ever since Roe v. Wade, is that the state does not have a compelling interest that will permit it to proscribe pre-viability abortions. As a result, no state has the right to prohibit such abortions, no matter how much due process one might pump into the process of enacting such a law. It’s not a question of states rights versus federal power for the simple reason that neither the states nor the federal government has the power to proscribe such abortions.
It is about the protections afforded to individuals from government action.
And it is that last issue - whether the government has a compelling interest in proscribing pre-viability abortions - that is the only real issue that is open to debate.
So far, the government has consistently lost that debate for the last forty years or so.
See? Once one examines the actual issues, and considers the actual positions taken, there is no inconsistency. But it does require one to pay attention to details; something that seems to be sorely lacking.
