3 ms·
I'm dead certain Congress couldn't before Roe, between Roe and Dobbs, or after Dobbs, not w/o a Constitutional amendment. That much is quite clear. I quoted f
by cryptonector 4y ago
I'm dead certain Congress couldn't before Roe, between Roe and Dobbs, or after Dobbs, not w/o a Constitutional amendment. That much is quite clear. I quoted from Dobbs, and as to Roe, Roe declared a constitutional right, which means Congress couldn't do anything about it w/o a constitutional amendment. If federal statute could compete, then Congress would have made Roe law long ago in any one of the many sessions in which there were vast majorities for it in both houses and in the White House. But no, it requires an amendment, which is why it's never happened -- it's hard to get 2/3rds majorities for anything, let alone controversial things.
- rory 4y ago> I'm dead certain Congress couldn't before Roe, between Roe and Dobbs, or after Dobbs, not w/o a Constitutional amendment. Well, they certainly thought they could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act
- cryptonector 4y agoOf course they can think that they can act.
- rory 4y agoSo you're saying you're "dead certain" that Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, etc. misunderstand what kinds of laws are and are not constitutional? Where does such a high degree of confidence come from?