3 ms·

> The Texas law forbids people from getting abortions in other states, where people have no representation in the Texas legislature by giving Texas citizens the

> The Texas law forbids people from getting abortions in other states, where people have no representation in the Texas legislature by giving Texas citizens the right to sue them in Texas courts. There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? > More generally problematic, your view would let any state persecute a minority of voters in that state and bind the federal government from guaranteeing equal protection to all Americans. Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"?

AstralStorm 4y ago
Particularly interstate matters are handled by federal institutions set up by Congress. Which is why Texas police cannot prosecute you for crime done in California, but they can report you to the FBI. As such, Texas is overstepping its jurisdiction. And sidestepping the law by making it civil cases... Which they can adjudicate. So, states can get into their mess by staying civil cases, when do we see an escalation?
- mcguire 4y ago
  Federal institutions such as the Supreme Court?
- pseingatl 4y ago
  Wrong. You can be prosecuted for a drug conspiracy hatched in California where the drugs are shipped to Texas. Federally, in Texas, California or all three "separate" sovereigns.
mattnewton 4y ago
> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? Yes, it’s insane. But I don’t have faith in our courts to not split this hair and allow it for abortion specifically because they are so clearly partisan on social issues here. Even without the insanity of the Texas law though, it’s still a huge issue for poor women in red states. > Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"? The federal government passes laws, or a constitutional convention passes amendments, and federal courts interpret them. The 14th amendment was interpreted to apply this protection before but now it is not.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? I'd suggest reading about the run up to the civil war. "State's rights" in that context was the slave states demanding that the free states capture and return escaped slaves outside of the slave states. Put simply, they wanted to enforce their fugitive slave laws on states that were completely uninterested in enforcing those laws. The idea that "state's rights" in US political discourse reflects some principled division, rather than just being another lever people in power used to fight other people in power, is fiction. This has and remains fundamentally about a minority asserting their views over the majority, including outside the borders of their state.
aksss 4y ago
> There is no way this can be upheld, right? Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith. > who decides More like, what laws decide. If the majority is infringing on protections from federal or state constitutions or federal or state legislation, the majority doesn’t win. Otherwise they do. Majorities can affect the laws given enough time and sustained effort.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  >Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith. Sure, but if they throw someone seeking an abortion in jail or tie them up in the court system, it may be irrelevant whether is is legal because that person still can't travel. That of course assumes they have the money and resources to travel, and that the health care systems in those neighboring states is accessible. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we already know there is going to be a flood of people from Idaho into WA seeking services and we have very few clinics east of the Cascades as it is.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Presumably the Mann Act would be used as a template
poulsbohemian 4y ago
>There is no way this can be upheld, right? I think you and cm2187 above are making similar arguments, but to my thinking it doesn't really matter: with the time and money it takes to rectify the situation, unconstitutional laws do serious damage regardless. I'm not a lawyer, but oh what I would give for legal review on the constitutionality of laws as a precursor to implementation rather than post-mortem. As another person suggests below - these states don't care anyway, they are following the same game plan as 1859.
- banannaise 4y ago
  Police departments are also very happy to arrest people over unconstitutional laws. The charges may not stick, but a solid tackle, some tight cuffs, and a rough ride can result in life-altering injuries. They also get the chance to keep the victim in jail for a bit, stick on more charges, and attempt to win convictions via plea bargain.
snickerbockers 4y ago
>There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? I'm pretty sure it will be seen as a violation of the constitution's interstate commerce clause, which gives that authority exclusively to the federal government. However, it is possible that a pro-life administration would institute an order that does make it illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, similar to how sex tourism is illegal.
- nullfield 4y ago
  Such a law actually being enforced, then the enforcement upheld, is (quite simply) "the end" for sane rule of law. States have no jurisdiction outside their borders. Just like, say, Wisconsin having a law on the books that makes it illegal to leave the state (while "intending" to continue living in the state) to get married elsewhere, where the marriage wouldn't be legal in Wisconsin (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/765.04 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/765.04) is ridiculous, likewise claiming that you get to apply your law somewhere else that you have no legal jurisdiction is insane. ...not that that stops the US government from doing the same thing if a US citizen travels to another country with a lower age of consent to bang some 16-year-old. It's this magic "intent" which we don't know how they can possibly know - were you over 21 and did you go to France to fuck that 15-year-old you've been playing video games with, or did you just go to France and happen to fall for that 15-year-old that you've been playing video games with hard after they showed you the tourist sights you've always wanted to see, ...then fuck them? Does it get prosecuted often? No. Is it another bullshit law, waiting to conveniently be used to make you guilty when the powers-that-be need a reason to make you guilty? Yes. Oh-so-yes.
sampo 4y ago
> How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? Just like how the US federal government can go after non-US citizens for something that is legal in their non-US country? Perhaps?
vageli 4y ago
Only the federal goverment can regulate interstate commerce so it is doubtful.

AstralStorm 4y ago

Particularly interstate matters are handled by federal institutions set up by Congress. Which is why Texas police cannot prosecute you for crime done in California, but they can report you to the FBI. As such, Texas is overstepping its jurisdiction. And sidestepping the law by making it civil cases... Which they can adjudicate. So, states can get into their mess by staying civil cases, when do we see an escalation?

mcguire 4y ago
Federal institutions such as the Supreme Court?
pseingatl 4y ago
Wrong. You can be prosecuted for a drug conspiracy hatched in California where the drugs are shipped to Texas. Federally, in Texas, California or all three "separate" sovereigns.

mattnewton 4y ago

> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? Yes, it’s insane. But I don’t have faith in our courts to not split this hair and allow it for abortion specifically because they are so clearly partisan on social issues here. Even without the insanity of the Texas law though, it’s still a huge issue for poor women in red states. > Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"? The federal government passes laws, or a constitutional convention passes amendments, and federal courts interpret them. The 14th amendment was interpreted to apply this protection before but now it is not.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? I'd suggest reading about the run up to the civil war. "State's rights" in that context was the slave states demanding that the free states capture and return escaped slaves outside of the slave states. Put simply, they wanted to enforce their fugitive slave laws on states that were completely uninterested in enforcing those laws. The idea that "state's rights" in US political discourse reflects some principled division, rather than just being another lever people in power used to fight other people in power, is fiction. This has and remains fundamentally about a minority asserting their views over the majority, including outside the borders of their state.

aksss 4y ago

> There is no way this can be upheld, right? Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith. > who decides More like, what laws decide. If the majority is infringing on protections from federal or state constitutions or federal or state legislation, the majority doesn’t win. Otherwise they do. Majorities can affect the laws given enough time and sustained effort.

poulsbohemian 4y ago
>Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith. Sure, but if they throw someone seeking an abortion in jail or tie them up in the court system, it may be irrelevant whether is is legal because that person still can't travel. That of course assumes they have the money and resources to travel, and that the health care systems in those neighboring states is accessible. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we already know there is going to be a flood of people from Idaho into WA seeking services and we have very few clinics east of the Cascades as it is.
selimthegrim 4y ago
Presumably the Mann Act would be used as a template

poulsbohemian 4y ago

>There is no way this can be upheld, right? I think you and cm2187 above are making similar arguments, but to my thinking it doesn't really matter: with the time and money it takes to rectify the situation, unconstitutional laws do serious damage regardless. I'm not a lawyer, but oh what I would give for legal review on the constitutionality of laws as a precursor to implementation rather than post-mortem. As another person suggests below - these states don't care anyway, they are following the same game plan as 1859.

banannaise 4y ago
Police departments are also very happy to arrest people over unconstitutional laws. The charges may not stick, but a solid tackle, some tight cuffs, and a rough ride can result in life-altering injuries. They also get the chance to keep the victim in jail for a bit, stick on more charges, and attempt to win convictions via plea bargain.

snickerbockers 4y ago

>There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? I'm pretty sure it will be seen as a violation of the constitution's interstate commerce clause, which gives that authority exclusively to the federal government. However, it is possible that a pro-life administration would institute an order that does make it illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, similar to how sex tourism is illegal.

nullfield 4y ago
Such a law actually being enforced, then the enforcement upheld, is (quite simply) "the end" for sane rule of law. States have no jurisdiction outside their borders. Just like, say, Wisconsin having a law on the books that makes it illegal to leave the state (while "intending" to continue living in the state) to get married elsewhere, where the marriage wouldn't be legal in Wisconsin (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/765.04 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/765.04) is ridiculous, likewise claiming that you get to apply your law somewhere else that you have no legal jurisdiction is insane. ...not that that stops the US government from doing the same thing if a US citizen travels to another country with a lower age of consent to bang some 16-year-old. It's this magic "intent" which we don't know how they can possibly know - were you over 21 and did you go to France to fuck that 15-year-old you've been playing video games with, or did you just go to France and happen to fall for that 15-year-old that you've been playing video games with hard after they showed you the tourist sights you've always wanted to see, ...then fuck them? Does it get prosecuted often? No. Is it another bullshit law, waiting to conveniently be used to make you guilty when the powers-that-be need a reason to make you guilty? Yes. Oh-so-yes.

sampo 4y ago

> How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2? Just like how the US federal government can go after non-US citizens for something that is legal in their non-US country? Perhaps?

vageli 4y ago

Only the federal goverment can regulate interstate commerce so it is doubtful.