8 ms·

We will soon be a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. This is an absurdity and such a state of affairs is not con

by czstar 4y ago

We will soon be a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. This is an absurdity and such a state of affairs is not conducive to having a properly functioning society. It is not hyperbole to say that the Supreme Court’s direction portends chaos. Consider this scenario. A woman in Texas goes to New Mexico and gets an abortion. The doctor that performs the abortion later decides to fly to Tennessee. The first leg of the trip involves a layover in Houston. Can the doctor get arrested for murder in Houston? Will people have to be careful where they travel now? What the Court did was take away a right that women have had for over 50 years. What they did is to say that states are free to take away a right. This is an astounding action by the Court. The access to a healthcare procedure will now be at the whim of state or federal legislatures? When talking about the legal ramifications of the Courts decision it is hard to speak hyperbolically. One member of the Court openly said the right to have consensual sex, the right to birth control, and the right to marry freely should be overturned.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
This is a divisive issue for many so I think we should be kind in our replies. In that vein, I disagree with a few points you stated. We, in the US, are a nation of states. It has always been the case that laws differ from state to state. Consider a legal gun owner in one state that does business in another - if he keeps his weapon on him in a restricted state, he will be jailed and possibly face prison. This fact - that we are a collection of states - was an important consideration to the forming of the united states as a whole. I would argue that the increasing federalization of laws is likely the opposite of historic norms in the united states. I know this does not help if you feel strongly about this - and many do. In this ruling, which has impacted so many, the court did not take away a right. The court stated that it had taken away the power of the people and created a law where none existed. If we, the people, dislike this then we petition our government to change the laws. . . and we start in our state. Today - literally today - I can call up my state reps office and schedule a lunch or a chat with her. I have, in the past, done just that. If the current laws bother you, and I think they do, then you should absolutely do the same. Look - its one of the great parts of America. I hope you have a good day man.
- czstar 4y ago
  Thank you for your response. Euclidean geometry is a vast subject with many theorems. Those theorems are logical consequences of the 5 axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just 5 statements are the basis for a large number of logical consequences. Imagine then how many logical consequences are possible from the many statements of the U.S. Constitution. There is no explicit right to an abortion stated in the U.S. Constitution but courts 50 years ago said that this healthcare procedure can’t be completely outlawed. They enshrined it as a right. It has been a right for 50 years. Now it is not. I talked with a conservative justice on a state Supreme Court many years ago. He told me that the legal basis for Roe had slowly been established by precedents over the years. He did not say whether or not he agreed with those precedents. I’m just pointing out that the expansion of the rights of women to an abortion was not without a well reasoned path. Sort like how after enough theorems one can see that then sum of the degrees of a triangle is 180 degrees. There have been historical variations in laws between states. Slavery is the quintessential example of this and it led to the Civil War. If there is too much variation on the legal protections between the states this can lead to chaos. The Court should be in the business to equalizing rights across the nation and not diminishing them. The Court is in the process of trying to equalize the rights to guns across the nation. While I oppose the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment most people have it should be equalized across the nation. This is particularly true since travel is so much easier now than in the past. We will soon live in a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. The last time that happened we ended up in a civil war. I don’t believe we will end up with a civil war over abortion but I can see liberal states telling Texas to go ahead an secede when Texas declares their right to do so (as they have done at various times over the past 40 years). The Court’s action is extremely divisive and I don’t think state legislatures should have to right to limit medical procedures. Let’s assume we both agree that at conception the embryo is a human being with all the accompanying rights. I don’t think state legislatures should able to force a person to risk their life to save that embryo. Should legislatures have to the right to force me to donate blood to someone or donate a kidney to save someone? I think not. Legislatures should not have the right to force women to risk their lives to save an unborn child. We disagree strongly on this issue. We disagree on the role of the Court. There are major power imbalances with regard to the power distribution among the states. These structural problems are coming to the fore due to results like overturning abortion. Such is my view. I hope you have a good day too. I will read any response you make but won’t respond further. I doubt you will convince me my position is wrong and I doubt I’ll convince you but it is fruitful to read other peoples’ opinions.
jacamera 4y ago
> Will people have to be careful where they travel now? It seems pretty clear to me that in your scenario Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over anything that happens outside its border. I'm certainly not a lawyer though and would be interested to hear if there is any precedent that says otherwise.
- fortytwo79 4y ago
  Isn't this already the case with marijuana? Legal in one state, if you travel with it to another state, but make a stop in an illegal state, you can go to jail? I don't know much about laws on that topic, but it seems to be a similar case to me.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    I think its better stated as: * If you buy something legal in one state * and you then travel to another state (where its illegal) with that item * then you have broken the law and can go to jail. Its not the doing something in state-a and then traveling to state-b. Its the traveling to state-b with something illegal in state-b. Does that make more sense?
    - salawat 4y ago
      Crossing state lines with marijuana elevates your offense to the Federal level, regardless of the legality situation in the source and destination states. Federally, marijuana transport across state lines is still trafficking in illegal narcotics. That the States don't help enforce it doesn't change a thing. Not a lawyer, just read books, mind.
- czstar 4y ago
  Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered. Whether or not it stands legal challenges I can not say. Would you be willing to risk arrest if you were a doctor in New Mexico and a Texas resident comes to you for an abortion? Even the threat of arrest has consequences on peoples’ actions.
hereme888 4y ago
While I think your view of what will happen is exaggerated, I think the overall situation shows the reality of how much division there is between states and parties.

by czstar 4y ago

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

This is a divisive issue for many so I think we should be kind in our replies. In that vein, I disagree with a few points you stated. We, in the US, are a nation of states. It has always been the case that laws differ from state to state. Consider a legal gun owner in one state that does business in another - if he keeps his weapon on him in a restricted state, he will be jailed and possibly face prison. This fact - that we are a collection of states - was an important consideration to the forming of the united states as a whole. I would argue that the increasing federalization of laws is likely the opposite of historic norms in the united states. I know this does not help if you feel strongly about this - and many do. In this ruling, which has impacted so many, the court did not take away a right. The court stated that it had taken away the power of the people and created a law where none existed. If we, the people, dislike this then we petition our government to change the laws. . . and we start in our state. Today - literally today - I can call up my state reps office and schedule a lunch or a chat with her. I have, in the past, done just that. If the current laws bother you, and I think they do, then you should absolutely do the same. Look - its one of the great parts of America. I hope you have a good day man.

czstar 4y ago
Thank you for your response. Euclidean geometry is a vast subject with many theorems. Those theorems are logical consequences of the 5 axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just 5 statements are the basis for a large number of logical consequences. Imagine then how many logical consequences are possible from the many statements of the U.S. Constitution. There is no explicit right to an abortion stated in the U.S. Constitution but courts 50 years ago said that this healthcare procedure can’t be completely outlawed. They enshrined it as a right. It has been a right for 50 years. Now it is not. I talked with a conservative justice on a state Supreme Court many years ago. He told me that the legal basis for Roe had slowly been established by precedents over the years. He did not say whether or not he agreed with those precedents. I’m just pointing out that the expansion of the rights of women to an abortion was not without a well reasoned path. Sort like how after enough theorems one can see that then sum of the degrees of a triangle is 180 degrees. There have been historical variations in laws between states. Slavery is the quintessential example of this and it led to the Civil War. If there is too much variation on the legal protections between the states this can lead to chaos. The Court should be in the business to equalizing rights across the nation and not diminishing them. The Court is in the process of trying to equalize the rights to guns across the nation. While I oppose the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment most people have it should be equalized across the nation. This is particularly true since travel is so much easier now than in the past. We will soon live in a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. The last time that happened we ended up in a civil war. I don’t believe we will end up with a civil war over abortion but I can see liberal states telling Texas to go ahead an secede when Texas declares their right to do so (as they have done at various times over the past 40 years). The Court’s action is extremely divisive and I don’t think state legislatures should have to right to limit medical procedures. Let’s assume we both agree that at conception the embryo is a human being with all the accompanying rights. I don’t think state legislatures should able to force a person to risk their life to save that embryo. Should legislatures have to the right to force me to donate blood to someone or donate a kidney to save someone? I think not. Legislatures should not have the right to force women to risk their lives to save an unborn child. We disagree strongly on this issue. We disagree on the role of the Court. There are major power imbalances with regard to the power distribution among the states. These structural problems are coming to the fore due to results like overturning abortion. Such is my view. I hope you have a good day too. I will read any response you make but won’t respond further. I doubt you will convince me my position is wrong and I doubt I’ll convince you but it is fruitful to read other peoples’ opinions.

jacamera 4y ago

> Will people have to be careful where they travel now? It seems pretty clear to me that in your scenario Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over anything that happens outside its border. I'm certainly not a lawyer though and would be interested to hear if there is any precedent that says otherwise.

fortytwo79 4y ago
Isn't this already the case with marijuana? Legal in one state, if you travel with it to another state, but make a stop in an illegal state, you can go to jail? I don't know much about laws on that topic, but it seems to be a similar case to me.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  I think its better stated as: * If you buy something legal in one state * and you then travel to another state (where its illegal) with that item * then you have broken the law and can go to jail. Its not the doing something in state-a and then traveling to state-b. Its the traveling to state-b with something illegal in state-b. Does that make more sense?
  - salawat 4y ago
    Crossing state lines with marijuana elevates your offense to the Federal level, regardless of the legality situation in the source and destination states. Federally, marijuana transport across state lines is still trafficking in illegal narcotics. That the States don't help enforce it doesn't change a thing. Not a lawyer, just read books, mind.
czstar 4y ago
Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered. Whether or not it stands legal challenges I can not say. Would you be willing to risk arrest if you were a doctor in New Mexico and a Texas resident comes to you for an abortion? Even the threat of arrest has consequences on peoples’ actions.

hereme888 4y ago

While I think your view of what will happen is exaggerated, I think the overall situation shows the reality of how much division there is between states and parties.