A New York county clerk has again refused to file a more than $100,000 civil judgment from Texas against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills.
The US Supreme Court can’t currently do what you say without a law change at the federal level.
Also, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery (mostly) was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865 after the end of the US Civil War.
Uh, yeah, that doesn’t contradict what they said. They were referring to free states which had abolished slavery at the state level, which were forced by federal law to help southern states reclaim slaves that escaped north. It has nothing to do with the 13th Amendment.
And the Supreme Court of the United States rules based on federal law which, prior to the 13th, meant that under federal law slavery was not illegal and slaves were still considered property.
It’s why the civil war was fought and then the amendment was passed. The victor makes the rules and since the United States beat the Confederate States, they made the rules.
It’s not even an equal comparison, particularly because of the precedent set in Dobbs by SCOTUS establishing abortion protections as a state issue.
the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe v. Wade. With that ruling, the Court returned lawmaking decisions about abortion to the states.
The federal law protects states rights until the federal law directly overwrites it. Slavery wasn’t federally legalized, was it(if the answer is yes, then THAT is what you should have said to them. Not a spiel about unrelated events that happened much later)? Similarly, abortion rights aren’t federally legalized.
Again. The war and amendment do not come into play. They were talking about what was happening before those things took place.
That’s… not how laws in the US work. I take it you’re not familiar with the maxim “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. Abortion was never legalized by federal law in the US either yet they were still being performed.
The federal law protects states rights until the federal law directly overwrites it
Not exactly. State laws can be as, or more restrictive, than federal laws but they cannot be less. This means that if the federal government doesn’t restrict it then states can be as restrictive as they want, as long as those restrictions aren’t in opposition to existing federal laws.
This is all in any decent history about slavery in the US. In fact, slavery is still not completely illegal in the US. Remember the 13th amendment? It formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the US, except as a punishment for a crime.
Then can you explain how Roe v Wade being overturned gave states the right to legislate abortion laws if they should have already had that right before?
That other stuff is fair, I’m simply saying that you should have started with that. Fair?
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment
the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe v. Wade. With that ruling, the Court returned lawmaking decisions about abortion to the states.
The Roe decision folded abortion into the 14th Amendment until it was overturned in Dobbs returning legislation over it to the states.
That other stuff is fair, I’m simply saying that you should have started with that. Fair?
If you don’t know what you are talking about then maybe you should not chime in and research the issue instead. This is all basic American history. Honestly, spoon feeding you things you could learn yourself to correct your wrongly made statements is exhausting. It’s time for me to block you and move on.
First of all: if you don’t want to correct people, then maybe you shouldn’t start comment threads off trying to correct people.
Second of all: this whole time I’ve simply been trying to communicate to you that you have consistently harped on the wrong part of your argument. You kept bringing up the 13th amendment and the federal outlawing of slavery, which was irrelevant to the conversation. The whole time. At no point was it relevant. I just kept trying to help you get there. And you finally did, and it “exhausted you”. Jesus. Get over yourself.
I didn’t think about what matters to SCOTUS at all.
The law still matters to people and that’s what’s important. Only after we, abandon the rule of law will there be a complete breakdown of society and a descent into chaos and anarchy.
I know from all the doom posting I see on Lemmy that many don’t, but I still have hope.
The US Supreme Court can’t currently do what you say without a law change at the federal level.
Also, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery (mostly) was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865 after the end of the US Civil War.
Regarding your second paragraph:
Uh, yeah, that doesn’t contradict what they said. They were referring to free states which had abolished slavery at the state level, which were forced by federal law to help southern states reclaim slaves that escaped north. It has nothing to do with the 13th Amendment.
And the Supreme Court of the United States rules based on federal law which, prior to the 13th, meant that under federal law slavery was not illegal and slaves were still considered property.
It’s why the civil war was fought and then the amendment was passed. The victor makes the rules and since the United States beat the Confederate States, they made the rules.
It’s not even an equal comparison, particularly because of the precedent set in Dobbs by SCOTUS establishing abortion protections as a state issue.
The federal law protects states rights until the federal law directly overwrites it. Slavery wasn’t federally legalized, was it(if the answer is yes, then THAT is what you should have said to them. Not a spiel about unrelated events that happened much later)? Similarly, abortion rights aren’t federally legalized.
Again. The war and amendment do not come into play. They were talking about what was happening before those things took place.
That’s… not how laws in the US work. I take it you’re not familiar with the maxim “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. Abortion was never legalized by federal law in the US either yet they were still being performed.
Not exactly. State laws can be as, or more restrictive, than federal laws but they cannot be less. This means that if the federal government doesn’t restrict it then states can be as restrictive as they want, as long as those restrictions aren’t in opposition to existing federal laws.
Well…
Slavery was legally practiced across America (the United States ) until its federal abolition in 1865.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 prohibited Congress from banning the importation of slaves for twenty years, effectively allowing the international slave trade to continue until 1808
In 1807, Congress passed the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves, taking effect on January 1, 1808. This intended to end transatlantic slave trade, but it didn’t abolish slavery or domestic sale of enslaved people within the US.
The Fugitive Slave Act or Fugitive Slave Law was a law passed by the 31st United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern interests in slavery and Northern Free-Soilers.
This is all in any decent history about slavery in the US. In fact, slavery is still not completely illegal in the US. Remember the 13th amendment? It formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the US, except as a punishment for a crime.
Then can you explain how Roe v Wade being overturned gave states the right to legislate abortion laws if they should have already had that right before?
That other stuff is fair, I’m simply saying that you should have started with that. Fair?
The Roe decision folded abortion into the 14th Amendment until it was overturned in Dobbs returning legislation over it to the states.
If you don’t know what you are talking about then maybe you should not chime in and research the issue instead. This is all basic American history. Honestly, spoon feeding you things you could learn yourself to correct your wrongly made statements is exhausting. It’s time for me to block you and move on.
First of all: if you don’t want to correct people, then maybe you shouldn’t start comment threads off trying to correct people.
Second of all: this whole time I’ve simply been trying to communicate to you that you have consistently harped on the wrong part of your argument. You kept bringing up the 13th amendment and the federal outlawing of slavery, which was irrelevant to the conversation. The whole time. At no point was it relevant. I just kept trying to help you get there. And you finally did, and it “exhausted you”. Jesus. Get over yourself.
You said slavery wasn’t federally legal. That was wrong.
You said the 13th amendment had nothing to do with it. That was wrong.
You don’t seem to understand how laws work at all.
Really?
Every response from you has been classic Dunning-Kruger.
Crazy how bad your reading comprehension is.
Do you think the actual law matters to the Supreme Court? They act more like priests now.
The supreme court wants some pretence of law otherwise their cushy jobs might be at risk. It’s why the somewhat push back on Trump
I didn’t think about what matters to SCOTUS at all.
The law still matters to people and that’s what’s important. Only after we, abandon the rule of law will there be a complete breakdown of society and a descent into chaos and anarchy.
I know from all the doom posting I see on Lemmy that many don’t, but I still have hope.
We’ve been literally dismantling the first amendment (Establishment clause particularly). And the fourteenth (the whole fucking thing by EO).