Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
That would be the same one under which the Civil Rights Act was enacted.

I was going to ask, what about the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment?, but then I remembered that the Civil War was fought to save the unborn from abortions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They're shooting fetuses at Ollie's Barbeque? Oh, the humanity!

Or is it that gut-shot fetuses don't grow up to engage in interstate commerce? Oh, the humanity!

If i got shot in Bama, I'm definately getting medivaced up north for treatment, so there's your interstate commerce.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If i got shot in Bama, I'm definately getting medivaced up north for treatment, so there's your interstate commerce.

You're not pretending to be a black woman, so neither law applies to you. Thanks for playing!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They're shooting fetuses at Ollie's Barbeque? Oh, the humanity!

Or is it that gut-shot fetuses don't grow up to engage in interstate commerce? Oh, the humanity!

No, it is that the suction devices that they use to suck the baby out of the womb and the forceps that they use to crush their heads and the red bags labeled "biohazardous waste" that they are disposed of in are transported across states' lines and earn a profit for the manufacturers, and hence are well within the realm of interstate commerce.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was going to ask, what about the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment?, but then I remembered that the Civil War was fought to save the unborn from abortions.

It has been awhile since I studied this, but as I remember, it wasn't the 14th amendmen that was used to uphold Congress' right to legislate in the arena of civil rights; it was the interstate commerce clause. The 14th amendment was used in the badges of slavery-type cases if I am remembering correctly.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I remembered that the Civil War was fought to save the unborn from abortions.

The Civil War had less to do with slavery than you lay people realize.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It has been awhile since I studied this, but as I remember, it wasn't the 14th amendmen that was used to uphold Congress' right to legislate in the arena of civil rights; it was the interstate commerce clause. The 14th amendment was used in the badges of slavery-type cases if I am remembering correctly.

Please review sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and get back to me.* Or read Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966). You may be thinking of sections 1 and 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment.

* You don't really have to get back to me. This was a figure of speech.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
As a sometime Dean supporter, I think all the troubles he's having are great. If he can overcome them, then he really is the shit, and if he can't, then he wasn't.

I will reiterate my earlier analogy.

Like the BCS - better to lose early.

My money is on this becoming a Dean-Edwards race

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
I was going to ask, what about the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment?, but then I remembered that the Civil War was fought to save the unborn from abortions.

Funny dat. I often chuckle when I think that the North fought the South so that women can have the right to abort for six months.

Was Lincoln watching "The Vagina Monologues" when Booth shot him?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please review sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and get back to me.* Or read Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966). You may be thinking of sections 1 and 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment.

* You don't really have to get back to me. This was a figure of speech.

I probably was thinking 13th (or whichever) amendment for the badges of slavery cases. I promise to be more careful in the future. These aren't amendments that get used much in my line of work.

Although I can't cite them off the top of my head, I know that there were cases in which the interstate commerce clause was used to uphold civil rights laws. That doesn't mean that the 14th amendment wasn't also used.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Funny dat. I often chuckle when I think that the North fought the South so that women can have the right to abort for six months.

I think you are confused as to what I was saying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I probably was thinking 13th (or whichever) amendment for the badges of slavery cases. I promise to be more careful in the future. These aren't amendments that get used much in my line of work.

Although I can't cite them off the top of my head, I know that there were cases in which the interstate commerce clause was used to uphold civil rights laws. That doesn't mean that the 14th amendment wasn't also used.

At least one Supreme Court decision -- a housing discrimination case from the late 60s or early 70s whose name eludes me -- suggests that, under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can confer standing on people to uphold the civil rights laws even though they might be deemed to lack the injury to establish a "case or controversy" under Article III.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
At least one Supreme Court decision -- a housing discrimination case from the late 60s or early 70s whose name eludes me -- suggests that, under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can confer standing on people to uphold the civil rights laws even though they might be deemed to lack the injury to establish a "case or controversy" under Article III.

And does that in any way prove that the interstate commerce clause has not been used to uphold civil rights laws?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
And does that in any way prove that the interstate commerce clause has not been used to uphold civil rights laws?

You initially suggested that the 14th Amendment does not empower Congress to pass civil rights laws, and I am telling you that not only is that wrong, the legislative power provided in Section 5 is in significant respects more robust than Congress's other powers. I mention this because the fact the 14th Amendment in this way permits evasion of the "case or controversy" requirement in Article III is a curiosity of passing relevance to what we were talking about. I would not be surprised that courts have also ruled that Congress can pass such laws pursuant to the Commerce Clause, but I also don't know why it would matter.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You initially suggested that the 14th Amendment does not empower Congress to pass civil rights laws, and I am telling you that not only is that wrong, the legislative power provided in Section 5 is in significant respects more robust than Congress's other powers. I mention this because the fact the 14th Amendment in this way permits evasion of the "case or controversy" requirement in Article III is a curiosity of passing relevance to what we were talking about. I would not be surprised that courts have also ruled that Congress can pass such laws pursuant to the Commerce Clause, but I also don't know why it would matter.

What we're getting at is a new Conservative Party Line, i.e., that if we're stuck living with Civil Rights laws constitutionally underpinned by the 14th Amendment, we might as well legislate personhood to ban abortion outright irrespective of the federalism interests we espoused to the intellectual conservatives, by which I mean the ones who don't give a shit about religious objections to abortion but who believe in limited federal power.

In other words, this is the real core GOP voter biting the intellectual GOP members in their collective ass. Mess with the bull, get the horns. It's all fun and games until they ban porn. I'm sure Slave will tell us what life as the Most Conservative Person in Toronto is like.