3 ms·

Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got. There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a

Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got. There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment. Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.

monocasa 4y ago
The ruling isn't actually rooted in state versus federal powers, and in fact opens the door for a federal ban on abortion.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  What is the ruling rooted in? This is what I see: """ hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Con-stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in-cluding the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCaseynow chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue ofabortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting. """ https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37 https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37
  - monocasa 4y ago
    That spells it out pretty well. That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, and therefore lower tiers of law (including federal US code) instituting arbitrary bans. Currently it looks like a states' rights issue because the bans are only in state code at the moment. The door is left open for federal code to fully ban abortion however, and Republican leaders have been messaging that this is their next step. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-acknowledges-a-national-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-ackn...
    - skissane 4y ago
      > That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, I don’t think they went so far as to definitely say there is no federal right to an abortion under any circumstances. I think they’ve left open the possibility that the due process right to life entails a right to an abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother (and possibly even when necessary to prevent severe long-term harm to her health-such as if continuing with the pregnancy was highly likely to cause her to go blind, for example). I could certainly see a future ruling (even by the current SCOTUS majority) upholding a federal right to an abortion in those very restrictive circumstances. All it might (sadly) take, is for America to have its own Savita Halappanavar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Agreed. Substantive due process was left intact. Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion. Any federal legislation would have to come in the form of an ammendment.
        skissane 4y ago
        > Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion. I think, if Congress enacted a narrow federal right to an abortion – such as the right to an abortion to save the life of the mother – the current SCOTUS majority would be likely to uphold it - the right to life (including that of the mother) is arguably "deeply rooted in the nation's history" – and "life" is even explicitly mentioned in the text – and so such Congressional legislation would arguably be a legitimate exercise of the Section 5 power to enforce Section 1. Plausibly, they might even uphold a statutory federal right to an abortion to save the mother's health, since the right to health has an obvious connection to the right to life.
vageli 4y ago
Seems like drugs might "reasonably" fall under the commerce clause [0] and thus federal regulation, though it is contemptible how much it is abused. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
- hellojesus 4y ago
  They do, but that only regulates interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is unimpacted.

monocasa 4y ago

The ruling isn't actually rooted in state versus federal powers, and in fact opens the door for a federal ban on abortion.

hellojesus 4y ago
What is the ruling rooted in? This is what I see: """ hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Con-stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in-cluding the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCaseynow chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue ofabortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting. """ https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37 https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37
- monocasa 4y ago
  That spells it out pretty well. That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, and therefore lower tiers of law (including federal US code) instituting arbitrary bans. Currently it looks like a states' rights issue because the bans are only in state code at the moment. The door is left open for federal code to fully ban abortion however, and Republican leaders have been messaging that this is their next step. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-acknowledges-a-national-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-ackn...
  - skissane 4y ago
    > That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, I don’t think they went so far as to definitely say there is no federal right to an abortion under any circumstances. I think they’ve left open the possibility that the due process right to life entails a right to an abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother (and possibly even when necessary to prevent severe long-term harm to her health-such as if continuing with the pregnancy was highly likely to cause her to go blind, for example). I could certainly see a future ruling (even by the current SCOTUS majority) upholding a federal right to an abortion in those very restrictive circumstances. All it might (sadly) take, is for America to have its own Savita Halappanavar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Agreed. Substantive due process was left intact. Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion. Any federal legislation would have to come in the form of an ammendment.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion. I think, if Congress enacted a narrow federal right to an abortion – such as the right to an abortion to save the life of the mother – the current SCOTUS majority would be likely to uphold it - the right to life (including that of the mother) is arguably "deeply rooted in the nation's history" – and "life" is even explicitly mentioned in the text – and so such Congressional legislation would arguably be a legitimate exercise of the Section 5 power to enforce Section 1. Plausibly, they might even uphold a statutory federal right to an abortion to save the mother's health, since the right to health has an obvious connection to the right to life.

vageli 4y ago

Seems like drugs might "reasonably" fall under the commerce clause [0] and thus federal regulation, though it is contemptible how much it is abused. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

hellojesus 4y ago
They do, but that only regulates interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is unimpacted.