After reading the Alito decision, Henry Bemis told us that overthrowing Roe v. Wade meant that states alone could legislate the rules for abortion within their borders.

On May 9, for example, he told us that "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."*

On May 10, he doubled down. "These are basic Constitutional law principles. . . Alito's decision expresses the view of the majority that the abortion question is Constitutionally a matter to be resolved by the states. . . It is simple law, and simple logic."**

I called that nonsense because removing the constitutional status from a "right" does NOT relegate the issue to states: it relegates it to normal legislative processes, both local and national. Congress can make national rules for abortion. Bemis's typically thoughtful reply was "What you said is just outright wrong, as any first-year law student would know. It is as simple as that." I responded by noting that Henry had inadvertently given us a falsifiable proposition and hence that we all would be able to evaluate his expertise within a year or two.

Well, that day approaches a lot faster than I'd expected. After having for 50 years argued states rights as a reason to reject Roe, the anti-abortion forces are now reversing themselves and urging Republicans to abandon the states rights logic and work through Congress to prohibit abortion nationally.*** Hypocritical, yes, but there's no surprise in this. The activists care about results--a complete ban on abortion throughout the United States--and not process; about Christian dominance, not states rights.

And you know what? Constitutional lawyers are not rejecting the idea as unconstitutional. Why? Because national legislation on abortion is as constitutional as federal laws on interstate commerce or anything else. Alito's musings on "states rights" were dicta, meaning collateral comments without precedential import. Bemis took those musings seriously, which betrays both the limitations on his understanding of law and his credulity when hearing a cozy bedtime story read by Amy Coney Barrett.

Stay tuned. The Right will go farther, and the supreme court will not interfere on states rights grounds.




*https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2427973,2428144#msg-2428144


**https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2427943,2428344#msg-2428344


***https://www.businessinsider.com/anti-abortion-memo-to-gop-abortion-not-left-to-states-2022-7?op=1

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/17/congress-abortion-roe-federal-ban



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2022 06:22PM by Lot's Wife.

Just like the Taliban.

Imagine the threat this poses to the LDS church, which has for generations taught veneration for the constitution. Now the Q15 can't touch the issue because Mormonism is split down the middle between traditional conservatives that value the constitution and populist conservatives who are working to overthrow it.

What's the politic thing to do? Maintain complete silence on what is the most important moral issue of our age.

as their own "fiefdom" if the big "E" Evangelicals take over America like the Taliban.

I remember Joel Osteen and others ten years ago sidestepping or downplaying their theological differences with Mormonism during Mitt Romney's presidential run. Previously, they were adamant that Mormons were not Christians, didn't believe in a single god, etc. Once Romney became the favorite against their proclaimed "anti-christ" (Obama), total silence.

They have to have the Constitution recognize a fetus as more than it is.

They won't stop there. They'll go after contraception, gay rights, gay marriage, and the other rights that stemmed from the no-longer-constitutional privacy cases.

Yup it becomes the legislature’s responsibility instead of the court’s but it’s going to go to the states first because it’s easier the pass pro-choice laws in certain states than it is at the federal level.

Anyways the timing of the repeal is very suspect for me. Someone is trying to stir the shit.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyways the timing of the repeal is very suspect
> for me. Someone is trying to stir the shit.

Could you explain what you mean by this? From my perspective the timing is perfectly understandable. The new appointments rendered overthrow possible, and the court acted as soon as an apposite case reached their chambers.

I take it you see something else at work?

What would be the enforcement mechanism? I could see Maryland simply refusing to enforce a national ban.

There are many ways. The federal courts in MD enforce federal law; so obligated too are the state courts. Both court systems can fine the state and convict non-responsive state officials of contempt and other crimes.

Recall also that immigration, drugs, and other issues are policed by the Feds with or without the permission of the states. The FBI can also arrest people for violating federal statutes. Recall also what happened when the South refused to desegregate its schools in the 1950s: that RINO Dwight Eisenhower ordered the national guard in and had that armed militia integrate the schools directly. There is also a range of options--more practical than some of the ones I've mentioned--in the form of reductions in, or cessation of, various federal subsidies.

For a federal law successfully to be ignored generally requires inaction on the part of the state plus acquiescence by the federal government.

I hear what you're saying. I'm just trying to think this one through. For instance, Baltimore is a sanctuary city, and it's really rare to hear of immigration enforcement locally. I've also lived in places where laws against casual marijuana use are not generally enforced.

I think in some places this proposed law is going to be like prohibition -- unpopular and ultimately, unenforecable.

If the GOP takes the House, the Senate, and then the presidency with today's Supreme Court???

I think there's an excellent chance that enforcement occurs.

Hopefully that will not happen.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For a federal law successfully to be ignored
> generally requires inaction on the part of the
> state plus acquiescence by the federal government.
===============================
Unless . . .
. . . it is reasoned that "playing by the rules" when those rules have been clearly arbitrarily conjured, and subject to change unpredictability on the merest of whim, -- no longer makes sense.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
------------------------------------------ federal law successfully to be ignored
> generally requires inaction on the part of the
> state plus acquiescence by the federal government.


A pot to piss into until they alter the constitution. Prohibition is always the example of ado over and slavery of doing it wrong.

The angst ‘ conflicts’ as to what decisions belong with the states & which belong with the Federal gov’t continue as does technology, probably open to consideration far into the future

"We the People (including fetuses) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity/Fetuses, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, including fetuses."


As to how a national anti-abortion law could be "enforced" at a state level, look at the "Max 55 mph" event beginning in 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

What sounds like a simple 'do it or lose money' strategy was quite a bit more complex, but effective, at least in making recalcitrant states go through the motions.

If a Federal Bureau of Abortions (The FBA) were to be created to enforce anti-abortion regulations and investigate violations, there will always be a certain small percentage every year of its sworn officers who either get abortions or have their wife/GF get one.  It's what Man does best.

One wonders what the penalties will be for the individual steps involved in getting/providing abortions? An old Cheech & Chong routine comes to mind: "Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!"

You leave me with so much to say.

First, the Kangaroos recently let stand a TX law privatizing enforcement by allowing citizens to sue anyone who participates in an abortion $10,000 per event. Imagine how many people could make fortunes if the speed limits were likewise enforced by bounties. I fear you'd be in the poor house, my second-fastest-car-on-the-405 friend.

Second, a lot of states--it appears a slight majority of states by political coloration as opposed to population, you silly democrats--seem more than happy, in your inimitable argot, to whack peepees.

Third, one wonders how far the Kangaroos and their political masters are willing to take their logic. For the majority decision described fetuses as "unborn human beings," which to my ear sounds a lot like calling them "unborn human beings." And what is the penalty for killing human beings?

And that's just the first few of the worms that are crawling out of that newly opened can of Dobbs-brand judicial nonsense.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, the Kangaroos . . .
===============================
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M0H1ng6NE

. . . never trust 'em

"And you know what? Constitutional lawyers are not rejecting the idea as unconstitutional. Why? Because national legislation on abortion is as constitutional as federal laws on interstate commerce or anything else. Alito's musings on "states rights" were dicta, meaning collateral comments without precedential import. Bemis took those musings seriously, which betrays both the limitations on his understanding of law and his credulity when hearing a cozy bedtime story read by Amy Coney Barrett."

COMMENT: Your foolishness knows no bounds! Consider the following legal analysis of this issue, which represents my views on this matter, and incidentally the views of any Constitutional law scholar or attorney that has considered this issue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/roe-overturned-congress-abortion-law/

"This time around, Congress would again define access to abortion as a case of interstate commerce. People travel across state lines to procure abortion services; medical equipment that provide abortions all moves in interstate commerce; and licensing, training and education for abortion providers all involve interstate travel and commerce. Proponents hope that by codifying Roe in this way, a new federal law guaranteeing the right to abortion would survive the Supreme Court’s inevitable review."

"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."

"If the Supreme Court rules that Congress has the power to protect abortion through legislation, Congress also would have the power to prohibit abortion through legislation. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously concluded in an 1824 Commerce Clause case, the power to regulate necessarily includes the power to prohibit."

"Ultimately, any victory for abortion rights the Democrats might claim with the WHPA would be temporary, lasting only until Republicans regained control."

Note particularly the second paragraph in this quotation, which of course is exactly what I said previously on RfM and which you then and now characterize as my "lack of understanding of the law," and "credulity," notwithstanding 40 years of legal experience as compared with your zero.

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

"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." (Emphasis added from your benefit!)

Finally, the fact that 'states rights' was referenced by dicta in Dobbs (which the majority signed off on) further 'signals' a possible inclination of the Court to overturn any federal legislation as related to abortion. But then, you clearly do not understand what dicta means either. In a Court ruling on any level, dicta are not merely the off-hand "musings" of the Court without import, as you claim. Although not part of the 'controlling opinion,' it does represent the Court's thinking on a peripheral matter and is often cited in lower courts when such a peripheral matter is relevant to an issue at hand. Such dicta should definitely be taken seriously before any proposed legislative action to supersede Dobbs. As noted above, with the current Court, this is a very dangerous game.

Schools out.

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-2430742

What 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-2428145

You 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-2428148

So 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.

Oh, to be overruled by philosopher kings.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, I saw Ted Cruz senator of Texas saying that the overturn of roe v wade will open the door to question the gay marriage rulling as well, so that states can decide. That's the way it should have been done in the first place and there are a list of states that may overturn it, but I have my doubts they will actually go back on giving legal benefits because congress never backtracks on an entitlement, America is the story of people fighting for rights and the envelop always increasing, politicians get voted out when they slaughter the sacred cow. Hence our deficit is over 29 trillion.

That was incoherent. I thought you could do better.

New theory – Maca is actually Herschel Walker.

These are Herschel's recent thoughts on climate change and air:

"Since we don't control the air our good air decided to float over to China's bad air so when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we got we to clean that back up."

Tell me that doesn't read like a standard Maca brain dump.

Almost, but I have to say, Herschel takes the cake when it comes to incoherence. You can see why the former guy likes him ;-).

I often wonder if Maca isn't satire...

praise be to allah ~


according to the prophet ~


(peace and blessings of allaah be upon him) ~


“and do not kill the soul which allah has forbidden to be killed except in the course of justice”


according to the prophet ~


(peace and blessings of allaah be upon him) ~


"losers indeed are those who killed their children foolishly, due to their lack of knowledge, and prohibited what god has provided for them, and followed innovations attributed to god. they have gone astray; they are not guided" ~


according to the prophet ~


(peace and blessings of allaah be upon him) ~


"you shall not kill your children due to fear of poverty, we provide for them, as well as for you. killing them is a gross offense" ~

"Given that God designated the White Race to rule all the darker shades, upon the birth of each American, photographs of both his or her armpits shall be taken and appended to the birth certificate, with a measured 'Whiteness' scale reading, ranging from 1.00 (pure white) to 9.00 (pure black). Only Americans with whiteness less than 2.49 are granted full, unfettered Citizenship.  Only they may use the 'Whites Only' drinking fountains and sit at Woolworth's lunch counters.  America will be on a better pace when every American knows his place."

--Billy Joe McCallister, Hero of America-for-Christian-Whites and America's most popular Analphabet

Wasn’t he the guy that skipped town with Tilly Hatch’s bridge?

That was Blackwater Hattie's doings.

I believe Washington was the first state to OK abortions, I don't remember if it was a court case, a legislative law, or citizen initiative..

The theories and reasoning behind the existing conflicts between abortion (and anti-abortion) reasoning and perspectives are part of a book I received yesterday, and today consider one of the relatively few "most important" books I have ever read:

"WHITE TRASH: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America," by Nancy Isenberg.

I ordered it for a completely different reason: I listen to YouTube videos as I do dishes and cleaning and similar things, this book came up in the suggested videos, and it sounded to me like this book could could (finally!!!) explain my [now deceased] Mom's perspective on life, morals, and ethics which I NEVER understood throughout all of my life. I was interested in why my Mom and I literally "saw" reality in such incredibly different ways when it came to politics, racial matters, social class, logical and moral principles, etc., etc., etc.

I began reading it today and it is already one of the most valuable books to me that I have ever read, EVER, in all of my life.

This book does discuss abortion (with startling discussion of former President Carter's reasoning about abortion included), but it illuminates SO MUCH MORE about the differences between Americans as a group, and also the differences between Americans and (mostly) Europeans and the Africans who were historically brought to this continent, and why American and European histories are what they are.

Go to Amazon, or Barnes & Noble, and put in the author's name. I was able to get a hardback copy, but these are now, evidently, fairly rare, so you might have to get a paperback copy.

There is reasoning and history behind anti-abortion stances (the same goes for pro-abortion stances), and I think you will be as startled as I have been today when you find out the many different, and to us "invisible," "whys" we Americans all live within, and we so often don't have the slightest clue they even exist.

In fairly large part, I am literally not the "same person" I was this morning (before this book arrived in the mail).

It is THAT good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2022 12:41AM by Tevai.

Many people confuse money with class. You can have very rich white trash; you can have prominent white trash.

America's class system is intra-racial and more subtle. The wealthy planters at first treated their poor white indentured labor and black slaves the same as they did back in England. But after several uprisings, Bacon’s Rebellion being one of the most notable -- the planters began to show a measure of favoritism towards their white workers in order to prevent them from joining forces with the blacks against them again.


Stick with us, follow our rules, and we won't openly treat you like dirt like we do back in England. We'll let you do that to the blacks if you police them for us. We're let you live here after your time is up, give you land (if you first kill the Indians on it, clear it, give us the timber, and then pay us rent or crops), and so on.


Think of holding a carrot in front of a mule and promise to give it to him but you never do and your get the picture.


You would have expected a high degree of intermarriage and absorption in such a small minority of people across the sea in a wilderness, but that didn't happen. The wealthy planters didn't marry the whites beneath them, who in turn didn't marry the enslaved Africans. Why not? That began to happen, so in the late 1600s the typical race barriers that we know of were created to prevent that from happening. Check out this famous painting from Brazil called "Ham's Redemption:"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham%27s_Redemption


President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who grew up in the South and understood the politics of racism from the inside, saw it in part as a ploy to divide and conquer.


“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2022 09:24AM by anybody.

"There is reasoning and history behind anti-abortion stances (the same goes for pro-abortion stances), and I think you will be as startled as I have been today when you find out the many different, and to us "invisible," "whys" we Americans all live within, and we so often don't have the slightest clue they even exist."

COMMENT: Thank for this book referral. I did not read the book, but your post created enough interest for me to check it out on Amazon and read the "Preface" as made available in the "Look Inside" option.

Now a comment directed to the above quote from your post:

When considering any social phenomena, be it Trump's election (apparently the main focus of the book), or the various stances on abortion, it is no doubt easy to not only ask "Why" but to recognize that there are many "invisible" whys we all "live within" that play a role in the social fabric of society, and our individual responses to it.

Note, however, that this point on its face is rather trivial. When an historian attempts to move on from the trivial to demarcate all or some of these whys and then use such efforts as an "explanation," there is always an 'underdetermination' problem. The complexity of the whys always outpaces any such explanations. What we are left with is arguably not an explanation at all, but rather at best some interesting social and historical 'facts' to consider as within the causal mix of the social phenomenon in question. The danger is when one presents or reads such history and comes away with anything remotely definitive, that is, anything close to *the* explanation.

Also, in my personal view all *individual* human thought and action encompasses individual values and rational thought based upon one's own unique experiences, which transcend any broadly defined social or historical 'whys,' however complex. It is hard to argue this point, but when I see how many of us here on RfM were psychologically, culturally, historically, socially, and theologically entrenched in Mormonism, but yet somehow were able to 'reason our way' out, it tells me that the fundamental "why" simply represents a personal, rational, thoughtful journey, more or less independent of social or cultural factors and explanations. Of course, we all may be outliers within broader social and cultural explanations, but I doubt it.

I am reminded of a possible analogy with classical statistical mechanics where the temperature of a volume of gas can be determined by a statistical consideration of the motion of its constituent molecules. The measured temperature is still reductive to the individual molecules. Temperature does not "arise" magically as a holistic causal 'entity' separate from its molecular constituents. Similarly, social and historical facts are ultimately dependent upon the interactions of individual actors, in conjunction with localized natural events. We should not lose sight of this when considering legitimacy of proposed social or historical 'causes.'

So, when one reads books like "White Trash" what they are getting (I suspect) is a socially based abstraction from millions of individual thoughts and actions now couched in terms of broad social trends and history. The problem is when such facts are presented in terms of overly simplistic causal explanations.

It strikes me that the abortion issue is illustrative of my point. People are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" more because of their personal experiences, personal values, and personal deliberation on the issue, not because of broad social factors or some historical narrative that "invisibly" influenced them one way or the other.

This is a brain fart in soliloquy if I've ever read one before. Reductio ass asserted. It's got gas!

You have come to entirely incorrect ideas re: this book.

It is NOT about Trump, nor is trump the "main focus" of the book, nor is abortion (which is talked about twice, in passing).

It is about the American people (including most all of us who are Americans, minus recent immigrants) and how we became the American people we are, with the American values we have. This book includes much of the historical material which is usually left unsaid or unwritten--even though most of us "really" do know a lot of it, sort of, in one way or another.

(My individual addition: a whole lot of our individual "knowing" comes from films, which generally leave out much of the truly important, nuanced, deep stuff because they are entertainment, first and foremost. I have been doing research lately into "Hollywood" history, and I am astounded at much of what I am learning for the first time--and I grew up here, in the midst of the entertainment industry, and although I already knew many of the historical facts [who started which studio when], I did not have the intellectual maturity, nor the background (ethnic or otherwise), to truly understand what I was really observing in my family life, among my neighbors, or among the kids I knew at school--many of whom were industry kids, one way or another.)

In general: We Americans tend to just not know, or prefer to "not be aware," of a whole lot of important historical material about our own families (no matter which families we come from)...our own, known to us, ancestors and relatives...who impact each of us as American individuals, and how we perceive American life, American values, and many or most of our fellow Americans.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2022 05:35PM by Tevai.

I would say what you just said applies so much to Mormons. I actively avoided Mormon History. So much of it contains manipulations, machinations, and malice I simply didn't know.

I replaced American with Mormon in my mind reading your response and it was enlightening.

This is a really good analogy!

Thank you, Elder Berry!

:)

You are welcome. Mormonism is an American thing tied to classes and their struggling.