Henry, this is just dishonest.
In the past you have deceived us about having an undergraduate degree in microbiology and then about having a science degree. When I then pointed out that you virtually never present any math or science but only refer to works on the philosophy of science, you finally admitted that your BA was indeed a degree in philosophy and that you subsequently earned a law degree. So all that nonsense about microbiology and science education was just posturing.
Here you evince your ambivalent attitude towards truth again. To wit. . .
-------------------
> COMMENT:
> Consider the following legal analysis of this
> issue, which represents my views on this matter. . .
Really? The article "represents [your] views on the matter?
The article describes the commerce clause as the basis for Congressional legislation on abortion. But you never said anything about the commerce clause. In fact, a quick search of the RfM database shows you have never used the phrase "commerce clause" in any context whatsoever. But I have--once yesterday in this very thread, and multiple times in debate with you on May 25.
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2430576,2430742#msg-2430742What is happening here is that you are lifting my analysis and claiming it as your own despite the fact that you have never said anything remotely similar before.
Second, and more fundamentally, until now you have insisted that Dobbs does not give Congress the power to legislate on abortion at all. In fact, you said, the Alito decision precludes Congressional action.
In your words,
> The Alito draft opinion that rejects Roe v. Wade
> includes language consistently indicating that
> this is a state matter, and not a federal matter...
> (As such, if Congress were to pass
> either a pro-abortion law, or an anti-abortion
> law, it would be a usurpation of state rights, and
> thus would be rejected as unconstitutional.
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2427973,2428145#msg-2428145You declared unequivocally that abortion is now "a state matter, and not a federal matter." You said that "if Congress were to pass" a law on abortion "it would be a usurpation of state [sic] rights, and thus would be rejected as unconstitutional."
How can you now turn around and claim that you have always said Congress can regulate abortion?
-------------
Let's go on to your next deception. You embolden it even as you falsely claim it is "exactly what [you] said previously on RfM."
> "WITH THESE NEGATIVE COMMERCE CLAUSE DECISIONS AND
> AN EVEN MORE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT
> SUPERMAJORITY INSTALLED FOR THE FORESEEABLE
> FUTURE, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE SAME FIVE JUSTICES
> WHO APPEAR POISED TO OVERRULE ROE V. WADE WOULD
> FIND REASON TO STRIKE DOWN THE WOMEN'S HEALTH
> PROTECTION ACT AS EXCEEDING CONGRESS'S POWER."
Henry, that is not at all what you "said previously on RfM."
I was the one that insisted that Congress could legislate on abortion nationally, which meant that every successive Congress could change the national law. You denied that any Congress could pass any legislation on the issue at all.
You have now accepted my premises to reach your (new) conclusion. Thus 1) the states rights language was non-binding dicta, 2) Congress can legislate on abortion, 3) the commerce clause provides the jurisdiction therefor, and 4) subsequent Congresses can reverse anything previously done.
Would you like a cracker, Polly?
----------------------------
Then there's this.
> Finally, the fact that 'states rights' was
> referenced by dicta in Dobbs . . .
I'm glad you now recognize that the "states rights" language was non-binding dicta. But you denied that previously. In answer to my statement that it was non-binding dicta, you replied that "the 'states' rights' part of the opinion by definition is NOT dicta!"
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2427973,2428148#msg-2428148So which is it, Henry? You said it wasn't dicta, now you agree with me that it was and yet you assert that your position has not changed. How does that work?
------------------
You then proceed to allege I don't understand what dicta means, but that seems ironic given that you have just adopted my position on the principle.
As for the rest of your claims, what's the point of arguing? You've shown you don't have a clue; and in the almost certainly hypothetical case that you want to know the truth, you could just crack open your Black's Law Dictionary and find out for sure.
What's that you say, Henry? You don't own a copy of Black's? Or you do possess that volume, you opened it up, and you found the definition too embarrassing to produce here? Care to shed light on this conundrum?
Crickets.
----------------
> Schools out.
That's too bad. You clearly needed more.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2022 02:16AM by Lot's Wife.