andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2022-07-05 12:00 pm
danieldwilliam: (Default)

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2022-07-05 03:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Difficult to tell but I think one of the main thrusts of your correspondant's essay was these sorts* of people were very happy imposing and trying to enforce extra-territorial restrictions with regard to slavery on other states on the grounds that their state rules should take precedence over other state rules and so might well be okay doing the same thing for abortion or same sex marriage or voting rights - rather than the grounds on which the previous law restricted their state right to restrict civil rights i.e. that rights to privacy exist in the Constitution and apply to all US citizens.

*or perhaps exactly these people and their decendents.

So I guess we'll see but I wouldn't be sanguine about them not trying.
danieldwilliam: (Default)

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2022-07-05 03:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Sort of. I think he's pushing for a Federal law restricting abortions rather than a Federal law demanding that one state effectively enforce another state's laws on the second state's residents.

Which is subtly different.

But I'm not at all surprised that the Republicans are contemplating a national restriction. Why wouldn't they?
calimac: (Default)

[personal profile] calimac 2022-07-05 05:23 pm (UTC)(link)
But that is actually the direction that the slavery rulings were going in the 1850s as well. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 defined slavery as inalienable property rights, placing it both beyond the federal government's ability to regulate in the territories and the free states' ability to regulate when it impinged upon them extraterritorially, as when slavers brought their slaves to free states.

The next step, and it surely would have come, would have been for the Court to declare that free states had no right to prohibit slavery at all. When Lincoln said that the US could not continue to exist as a house divided, that it must become all one thing or the other, this is "the other" that he had in mind.

That's pretty much how established state gun-control laws are being gutted; but for now, the path with abortion is slightly different, as the Court is so far declining to impose a prohibition so that has to be pursued legislatively. But it could come, especially if the legislative path proves unfruitful.

(And I refer you to something else with the word "prohibition" on it to remind you of how disastrous it is to impose complete legal sanction on something that 1) people desperately crave and 2) is impossible to stop.)
mellowtigger: (Default)

[personal profile] mellowtigger 2022-07-05 06:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Just a note to say that I appreciate this thread of discussion. :) Sometimes I wish that Dreamwidth had a simple "+1" counter, like from GooglePlus days.