5 ms·

Last year, this statement would have been factually incorrect. This year, this statement is factually correct. Like it or not.

rayiner 3y ago
It was always correct, which is why by the end the defense of Roe was reduced to stare decisis.
- anonymousab 3y ago
  The constitution - or rather, judicial interpretation of the constitution - is constantly in flux. The kinda things that were seen as constitutionally valid by SCOTUS less than a century ago are completely off the wall compared to today. And today's views will likely be very different from a future court's interpretation.
  - kiba 3y ago
    It's in flux because it's really difficult for us to change the constitution. So, we basically live patch the constitution with the supreme court. A proper fix would let the constitution change over time.
skissane 3y ago
That statement ("abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over") was factually incorrect last year and is still factually incorrect this year – insofar as one accepts SCOTUS as the ultimate authority on what the US Constitution says. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [0] is a federal law prohibiting certain abortion procedures. SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart, holding that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate abortion, and that the regulation in question was not contrary to Roe or Casey. Dobbs did nothing to overturn either the 2003 Act nor that 2007 decision, so abortion remains a federal concern, within Congress' power to regulate. (Thomas wrote a concurrence, joined by Scalia, casting doubt on whether such an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause is correct, but saying that this particular case was not the right vehicle for examining that issue.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

rayiner 3y ago

It was always correct, which is why by the end the defense of Roe was reduced to stare decisis.

anonymousab 3y ago
The constitution - or rather, judicial interpretation of the constitution - is constantly in flux. The kinda things that were seen as constitutionally valid by SCOTUS less than a century ago are completely off the wall compared to today. And today's views will likely be very different from a future court's interpretation.
- kiba 3y ago
  It's in flux because it's really difficult for us to change the constitution. So, we basically live patch the constitution with the supreme court. A proper fix would let the constitution change over time.

skissane 3y ago

That statement ("abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over") was factually incorrect last year and is still factually incorrect this year – insofar as one accepts SCOTUS as the ultimate authority on what the US Constitution says. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [0] is a federal law prohibiting certain abortion procedures. SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart, holding that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate abortion, and that the regulation in question was not contrary to Roe or Casey. Dobbs did nothing to overturn either the 2003 Act nor that 2007 decision, so abortion remains a federal concern, within Congress' power to regulate. (Thomas wrote a concurrence, joined by Scalia, casting doubt on whether such an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause is correct, but saying that this particular case was not the right vehicle for examining that issue.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart