Posted on 06/24/2022 9:49:56 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
It’s not about abortion. It’s about the revolution. It’s only about the revolution. Abortion, racial bias, gay rights, women’s rights is about the revolution. It’s so Wilsonian, yet Lenin’s message was much more resounding to American Communists and Fascists.
Right now, thousands of thousands of “useful idiots” are preparing firebombs and other methods of mayhem to overwhelm the nation at its core. It’s just another exercise in Cloward-Piven being executed to near perfection.
I don’t care about abortion, nor gay rights for that matter. I believe that everyone appears for judgement and God will pass judgement and that will be that. Stay awhile and enjoy rapture or burn in hell, it’s only for eternity. I’m not doing God’s job for him, he is fully capable. I trust his judgement.
Ack... I didn’t man to get so spiritual on y’all. /DJT24
It’s not about abortion. It’s about the revolution. It’s only about the revolution. Abortion, racial bias, gay rights, women’s rights is about the revolution. It’s so Wilsonian, yet Lenin’s message was much more resounding to American Communists and Fascists.
Right now, thousands of thousands of “useful idiots” are preparing firebombs and other methods of mayhem to overwhelm the nation at its core. It’s just another exercise in Cloward-Piven being executed to near perfection.
I don’t care about abortion, nor gay rights for that matter. I believe that everyone appears for judgement and God will pass judgement and that will be that. Stay awhile and enjoy rapture or burn in hell, it’s only for eternity. I’m not doing God’s job for him, he is fully capable. I trust his judgement.
Ack... I didn’t man to get so spiritual on y’all. /DJT24
Kind of odd, isn’t it? I mean a lesbian commenting on abortion.
What does it matter to her, she doesn’t have kids and made a conscious choice never to have any.
Also, no Fox News host is named. Tammy is a contributor, not a host; like Jason, Leo, Jessica, etc. Really like Tammy!
You, et. al: As I said before because of Federalism and enumerated powers, the Federal Government has absolutely no say in the matter...
I'm using your quoted post, but I'm directing this at all of you who graciously responded in rebuttal.
The prediction I posed was that the states would pass a patchwork of laws, and that patchwork would drive a desire for Congress to pass a conformity law. The rebuttal was that there was no enumerated power for Congress to have a say in the matter.
I disagree, and I would like to hear rebuttals.
Article IV Section 1 says:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.The obvious question here regarding Thomas' comments about other rulings from "emanations from penumbras" (contraception, alternative marriage, etc.), is how do states that are more restrictive deal with that states that are less so?
If a state is Constitutionally required to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, and those public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states are different across the states, then we could theoretically find ourselves in the situation where the most restrictive (or least restrictive) state will demand that their public acts, records, and judicial proceedings be the ones that must be given full faith and credit in all the other states.
That's where Congress has a Constitutional role, via Article IV Section 1, to step in an decide how the patchwork of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all the states will be effected.
To do so, I'm saying that Congress will have to debate the various states' claims and desires, and come to a compromise bill that normalizes the effects across all the states.
Thoughts?
-PJ
Why is nobody asking why Deep State allowed the SCOTUS to do this...
1) I would advise against using the term "patchwork", some might misinterpret your posts an attack on the Constitution, since it is used by Anti-Americans as a pejorative.
2) I think Madison explains why this idea is will not work, and is not in keeping with the Founder's vision of Federalism and Enumerated Powers per Federalist 45 :
" ... The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state."
Abortion clearly is not within the narrow jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
I agree that abortion, per se, is not in the federal purview, but settling full faith and credit issues between the states is an enumerated power of Congress.
What happens when the states conflict with each other over their abortion laws, and an interstate issue arises? What happens when, for example, Texas tries to prevent a woman from crossing state lines to get an abortion? Will Texas be violating a woman's right to freedom of assembly? If a woman has an abortion in New Mexico and returns to her home in Texas, will Texas try to prosecute her? Does she have a "full faith and credit" defense arising from the laws in New Mexico?
What happens when Thomas' veiled threat to go after same-sex marriage happens? Will some states refuse to accept marriages allowed in other states? That's ripe for a "full faith and credit" crisis right there.
-PJ
Well, now I know you meant to use "patchwork" as a pejorative, my mistake.
I don't need ad hominems, and I'm not speaking in pejoratives. It's a fair Constitutional question.
-PJ
Full faith and credit for abortion means a citizen of one state cannot be prosecuted by that state for getting an abortion in a state that permits it. Home “marriage” is harder, and will likely require separation of religious marriage from government unions. The term “marriage” belonged to the churches long before 1776.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.I'm assuming that this means that the citizens of each state are entitled to all federal privileges and immunities, not each other states' privileges and immunities, since this the Constitution of delegated federal powers. Each state has its own constitution that governs the people of the respective state.
-PJ
Citizens of one state have the privileges and immunities of another state when they are in that other state. Not in their own state, where the state defined privileges and immunities differ. Otherwise, the most or least restrictive state laws would be in force everywhere.
Any law saying it is illegal to cross state lines for an abortion (where it is legal) is prima facie unconstitutional.
Tammy has a unique insight when it comes to these issues, having been President of a large chapter of NOW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.