[nathanbedford]

This is tested existing law.

But it isn't.

It is not tested existing law that, "Both state abortion and private abortion may be regulated by the state. " In fact it's unconstitutional for the state to prohibit abortion, for example, in the first trimester.

Liberals often use the "general welfare" clause to expand the scope of their never ending regulation of other people's lives. It is a gross error of constitutional interpretation to invoke general welfare clause as a justification to expand the powers of Congress beyond the enumerated powers.

It may be lawful for a state to place restrictions on the liberties of infected individuals but that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the state prohibiting buggery between consenting adults in private which is explicitly constitutionally protected by the Supreme Court in the Texas case.

None of the arguments you raise have been reported to have been mooted by the attorneys for the landlord who is trying to get the New York City rent control statue declared unconstitutional.

[Navy Patriot]

You seem to have trouble distinguishing "regulated" from "prohibited".

I did not use "prohibit" in any of my responses.

In fact, the state may regulate abortion and the liberty of infected individuals.

I simply stated that you used poor examples by selecting serious human rights issues over property rights issues that would more clearly illustrate the rent control canard.

The government has a compelling interest in "to promote the general welfare" when the Nation's lives and health are in fact, seriously at risk, as opposed to the leftist usage of the same Constitutional charge, in fiction.