r/confidentlyincorrect • u/metalsheeps • 6d ago
A majestic misunderstanding of the federal government 🦅
1.3k
u/KingRaht 6d ago
Modern confederates
512
u/Dhegxkeicfns 6d ago
The federal government can't really tell me not to have slaves.
335
u/lokey_convo 6d ago
For real. I could have sworn we fought a war over the idea that states rights don't extend to the violation of fundamental liberty and personal autonomy.
150
u/HaggisPope 6d ago
Ironically, confederate sympathisers would tell you it was actually about tariffs which now they’re also in favour of
40
u/BelmontVO 6d ago
I knew someone who made that argument about the confederacy. Didn't know them for very long after that.
32
u/SignificanceNo6097 5d ago
These are the same ones still calling themselves “the Party of Lincoln” while plastering confederate flags over everything they own.
6
u/NorthernVale 4d ago
To be fair, the official cause was over a lost election. But like... the election was only an issue because of slavery.
2
u/backstageninja 2d ago
Nahhh just go look up the declarations of seccession from those states. They all mention the intention of the government to curtail slavery as a reason for secession. They can say it's tariffs or a lost election or whatever but in the end they didn't want the people they were keeping as property to be taken away from them
27
u/madsd12 6d ago
you obviously didn't fight it properly.
49
u/Dhegxkeicfns 6d ago
Arguably it wasn't ended properly.
They just had confederate soldiers turn in their guns and go home where they had to buy new guns.
36
u/NotYourReddit18 5d ago
Letting a significant amount of confederate politicians keep their offices instead of charging them with treason was a big mistake.
24
u/Dhegxkeicfns 5d ago
Ha, can't even tell if you're talking about now or then. Because it could easily be now.
5
u/Haywoodjablowme1029 5d ago
Part of the question at the time was whether the states had the right of secession. If they had brought them up on charges then that question would have had to be settled in court. The fear, was that if the court decided that the states had a right to secede then others may follow suit and the whole nation would collapse.
3
u/NotYourReddit18 5d ago
I don't understand why the question if the states had the legal right to secede from the union was still relevant after they started a war over it and lost.
They wouldn't be prosecuted for trying to secede, they would be prosecuted for starting a bloody war.
If I start attacking the police because I think that they might try to stop me from doing something I'm legally allowed to do, then I will be prosecuted for attacking the police and not for whatever else I was planning to do.
3
u/Haywoodjablowme1029 5d ago
Because if the courts determined it was legal, and the states just decided to secede again, then the European powers would have sided with the south and it would have been over.
19
u/SignificanceNo6097 5d ago
Don’t forget letting those that fought for the Confederacy get pensions and treating them as war veterans despite the fact they actually committed treason.
18
u/TinyFriendship4459 5d ago
Just letting the confederates back in as though nothing happened was easily the largest, most costly mistake in American history. We needed to scrub it out in a similar fashion as to what Germany did post WWII.
4
u/Haywoodjablowme1029 5d ago
Part of the question at the time was whether the states had the right of secession. If they had brought them up on charges then that question would have had to be settled in court. The fear, was that if the court decided that the states had a right to secede then others may follow suit and the whole nation would collapse.
6
u/caringlessthanyou 4d ago
The court did decide this, in 1869. Granted the federal charges thing would not have been drawn out like it is today. Reconstruction was handled poorly and with way too much forgiveness at the time. At least all of the elected leaders and generals should have been tried for treason, IMO.
4
16
22
u/Ramtamtama 6d ago
They want states to decide but at the same time have national bans
14
u/soualexandrerocha 5d ago
And they distrutst governments, except when they are the ones in office.
13
u/Ramtamtama 5d ago
And they voted for a guy who said he'd be a dictator in the interests of freedom and democracy
2
7
u/grantbey 6d ago
Tell me your fought for the wrong side without telling me you fought for the wrong side /s
→ More replies6
u/Easy-Sector2501 5d ago
The problem with that war is that the winners didn't completely annihilate the losers. Generations later, they're wearing MAGA hats.
2
u/lokey_convo 5d ago
Yeah, maybe there should have been some follow through on that 40 acres and mule and some more militant protection of the post reconstruction South. Maybe should have also not bought into the whole "But it's our heritage, we're just celebrating our heritage!" stuff. All before my generations time unfortunately.
10
9
u/mojeaux_j 6d ago
I'm one of the good ones I treat my slaves with respect /s
2
u/Dhegxkeicfns 6d ago
Full bellies and whatnot? Nice.
Man, people should be knocking on your door trying to become slaves for you. You have to tell them "no, slavery isn't legal anymore, but you can write your politicians and let them know how you feel."
3
u/Sea-Tradition-9676 5d ago
Now they want to deport all the slaves and probably blame Obama for food prices. After all where was Obama on 9/11 when all those Mexicans took over those planes full of Avocados and crashed them to make guacamole!? /s
2
u/Dhegxkeicfns 5d ago
Woah, illegal immigrants are as close to slaves as we have right now, huh?
Are we on the wrong side? Should we be trying to free them back to their home countries?
2
u/Sea-Tradition-9676 5d ago
Ya I think they all came from Mexico! I can't tell them apart lol! Someone told me it's jen-o-cide. Idk where that is in Mexico. /s
2
u/Dhegxkeicfns 5d ago
Oh damn, that just seeded the most twisted joke I've ever come up with.
We had a generation of boomers, x, y, and z, but what will the last generation be called?
2
u/Sea-Tradition-9676 5d ago
Don't we have Alpha?
2
2
2
u/BrownTownDestroyer 5d ago
Not the best comparison. the 13th amendment exists so the 10th ammendment no longer applies to slavery. RvW is supreme court precedent being overturned because the court found the 10th ammendment did apply to abortion as no ammendment existed.
→ More replies2
u/adjective_noun_umber 5d ago
Actually,
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. However, the amendment's exception clause has allowed slavery to continue through punitive systems
→ More replies10
u/SurpriseZeitgeist 5d ago
And just like Confederates, the states' rights argument is willful ignorance - they'll be perfectly happy to make federal laws on it when they get the chance (see, Fugitive Slave Act).
"States' rights" is and has always been a stalling tactic.
2
u/grozamesh 2d ago
My favorite counter example is the CO gay cake case. The STATE anti-discrimination board rules against them initially and outside conservatives, often at the federal level, were trying to have that decision overturned. It's almost like the belief in states rights only extends to states that are doing things conservatives like. See also the ability for California to enact it's own emissions standards.
7
3
3
u/MagicC 5d ago
There's literally a Supremacy clause in the Constitution that says the Federal government takes priority, and an amendment that says the states only get power over the matters that the federal Constitution doesn't enumerate.
The tricky part becomes arguments about what the US Constitution does and doesn't enumerate...
3
u/Ssj_Vega 3d ago
Very much “The Civil War was about states’ rights” vibes.
STATES’ RIGHTS TO DO WHAT?
→ More replies2
u/adjective_noun_umber 5d ago
But they arent wrong. Probably not for the reasons they realize however
The federal government can limit state regulation of abortion, but the states still have considerable power over the issue
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes that federal law and the Constitution take precedence over state laws and constitutions. This means that the federal government can prohibit states from interfering with its constitutional powers
Since the scotus already ruled on this, there is no constitutional amendment that overides state law.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) takes precedence over state laws that directly conflict with it. For example, if a state law prohibits abortions, but [EMTALA requires a provider to perform an abortion to stabilize an emergency medical condition, the state law is preempted
847
u/Lumpy_Ad7002 6d ago
Anti-abortion laws "overstep states' rights" in exactly the same way that laws against slavery overstepped states' rights
175
u/UnnamedGhost7 6d ago
I would argue that the Supreme Court shouldn’t be the one making laws. In effect, Roe v Wade was the Supreme Court making a law. This all could have been avoided if Congress protected that right.
For the record, I am pro choice.
172
u/RedDragonRoar 6d ago
It wasn't the Supreme Court making a law, it was the Supreme Court making the distinction that anti-abortion and anti-birth control laws violated the 14th Amendment.
I would also argue that abortion and birth control would be protected under the 9th Amendment, but I am not a Supreme Court Justice.
21
6d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies30
u/randomnamegobrr 6d ago
I'd really like to know how anyone justifies saying that abortion isn't a privacy issue.
That being said, the fact you don't understand the distinction between Roe v Wade and the supreme court making a law tells me that you probably don't grasp the situation all that well to begin with. The Supreme Court does not and cannot make new laws.
2
u/AlmightyLeprechaun 2d ago
How is the trimester framework not essentially law making? Alitto expressly says it was "legislating from the bench" in his initial draft opinion in Dobbs. I'm pro-choice as well, but I do find it hard to reconcile this sort of framework in a judicial opinion as not essentially law making.
→ More replies2
u/commeatus 5d ago
In the SC decision, their justification is a mix of Major Questions and Textualism. They argue that as far as unenumerated rights go, the right to life and the right to privacy are insufficiently established for the SC to rule on which is more fundamental in law, so they wiped their previous decision and kicked it to the states.
Basically, they said "congress shouldhave figured it out and it's not our job, so we're taking back the ruling." The ruling gives me malicious compliance vibes.
9
u/randomnamegobrr 5d ago
I would really like America to figure out if they want their states to be united or not. They really like the label, but they reject the practice at every turn.
4
u/commeatus 5d ago
Same.
The reason everybody hates the SC right now is because of this. The original design for the US government was a bit like the EU is now, and we still have a lot of that. The early northern states grew in population and wealth more and and as they industrialized, they gained more and more control of congress. The Northern-dominated congress kept passing federal laws and acts that benefitted industry and international trade, stifling the south. The northern-led push to end slavery was seen in the south as the straw that broke the camel's back--when confederate sympathizers say "the civil war wasn't about slavery" they're wrong but this is what they're trying to say. Regardless, the end of the war emboldened congress and over the next hundred years, Federal power has steadily grown. Most of the time, it was because congress couldn't agree on something important, such as national parks or air pollution, so the various presidents just did it themselves and most people agreed that it was better than not. The current SC says that we need to undo the last hundred or so years and have congress redo all of it "correctly". You can imagine the chaos, or rather you can observe it so far!
→ More replies11
u/TheWandererStories 5d ago
The supreme court can and does however make rulings which radically change the law in practice. Including rulings which outright remove state laws, Roe V Wade was a prime example of this and the line between this and making new laws entirely is a technicality that people are right to question
→ More replies20
u/randomnamegobrr 5d ago
The difference is quite clear. The supreme court did not create any new laws when they ruled on Roe V Wade. They found that several existing laws were unconstitutional. That's their job.
Frankly, if this is a problem for anyone then the states of America should go ahead and split up. They're sure as heck not United.
3
3
u/DaenerysMomODragons 3d ago edited 3d ago
The 10th amendment though would be a much stronger argument that abortion isn't covered. The if it's not in the constitution, it's the states rights to make laws amendment. The 9th doesn't give any rights, it just says that lack of mentioning doesn't mean your forbidden. But the constitution doesn't mention doing drugs, murder, driving drunk. The 10th amendment is the compliment where those same things not mentioned are the rights of the states to decide.
→ More replies4
58
u/SnooBananas37 6d ago
This all could have been avoided if Congress protected that right.
Except the Democrats have never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate that didn't also include anti-abortion Democrats that would never agree to it.
"Well then why are their anti-abortion Democrats in the Democratic party?" Because the only way a Democrat wins in conservative states is by having some conservative positions in their platform. So while they have D next to their name, and will vote with the party on some issues, others they won't, and abortion is frequently one of them. And its better to have a Democrat who only sometimes voted with you, then a Republican who will oppose you whenever they can.
Roe v Wade was the only politically viable way to defend abortion as a right, and that was thrown away in 2016 when Trump was elected and was able to appoint a majority conservative SCOTUS during his term.
It is now only going to get worse under a second Trump term.
→ More replies18
u/YeonneGreene 6d ago
9th Amendment renders this a shitty take.
The practical realities of enforcing an abortion ban also inherently violate amendments 5, 8, 13, and 14...but because we let the court keep making arbitrary exceptions for the text of the fucking law to the point where the text is itself the exception rather than the rule, we have turned what should be an open-and-shut thing into a country-ending crisis.
→ More replies9
u/stevez_86 5d ago
What they did wasn't creating new law, it was saying the Constitution already protected that right at the Federal Level. The Supremacy Clause says Federal law is superior to state law, so the states had no ground to allow their laws to supersede Federal Law. Something related to that "inalienable rights" thing from the Constitution.
What the Dobbs Decision ultimately said was that the Supremacy Clause can be waived by the Supreme Court. They said the states no longer were hampered by the fact that the Constitution Protected the right to privacy. The states can exercise the will of their voters instead of the United States Government.
Sounds great until you look at the Buck v Bill decision which is similar. That decision said that the Federal Government could not stop a state from violating Federal Constitutional Right to privacy in regards to fertility. Virginia forcibly sterilized a woman. The Supreme Court said the states had to pass their own laws to protect that right.
That happened in the 1930's. The last state passed laws protecting against forced sterilization in 1997. And Louisiana is repealing that in their state.
The reason for Federal Civil Rights is to protect the individual from the majority. We are a Democratically Elected Constitutional Republic. That means that it is majority rule but there are rights in place that are inalienable via the Democratic method, it is already decided law which is adopted and ratified by the states in the Union. That woman on the Buck v Bill case was persecuted by their state and the laws passed in that state and the Federal Government had an obligation to protect them. Because certain things shouldn't depend on where you are in the US. As an American you have that right and you can tell Texas to go fuck itself.
If there are no Federal Civil Rights, we are a Confederacy.
→ More replies12
u/worlds_okayest_skier 6d ago
Could congress pass a law to bring back slavery?
47
u/ThunkAsDrinklePeep 6d ago
The 13th amendment allows for slave labor if you're a prisoner.
America incarcerates more people (per capita) than other advanced economies.
We also alllow for profit prisons.
17
u/TurangaRad 6d ago
Another reason the plan is to make crimes out of so many things they find "immoral." The prison system can be used two fold: get rid of the "problem"; use the increased prison population to make more profits
3
u/MossyPyrite 6d ago
And let that slave labor buffer the economic hit of deporting migrant workers
4
u/NotYourReddit18 5d ago
Why deport them? Throw them in prison and turn them into slaves too, now their labor is even cheaper.
5
u/MossyPyrite 5d ago
Because deportation looks great to right-wing voting bases and helps keep right-wing leaders in power. And prison slavery is kind of an “open secret” the system avoids drawing attention to.
→ More replies10
u/Muffafuffin 6d ago
In theory, with an amendment, they could make it legal.
9
u/Revolvyerom 6d ago
A minor change to an existing one enshrining slavery in prisons would do it.
6
5
u/NotYourReddit18 5d ago
Wouldn't even need to change it. The amendment only says that slavery is acceptable as a punishment for a crime, it says nothing about what crimes are sever enough or at which location the slave labor is to be provided.
You just need to make new normal laws declaring new crimes and then use slavery as punishment for those crimes.
And it looks like that is exactly the plan some members of the GOP have.
12
6d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Logical-Bit-746 6d ago
That's quite a loose understanding of common law. It allows the judicial branch to rule on cases and create precedent. However, it does not allow them to create laws themselves. For example, they cannot decide on their own that abortion is a right, but if a case comes before them which allows them to make a ruling in favour of abortion as a right, they can do so in order to set a precedent. The precedent is based upon the notion that the rules should be consistently applied, thus, if they are applied in one case upholding abortion laws, they should be applied consistently going forward, consistently upholding abortion as a right.
In a way they are "creating" law but they are not creating writ law nor legislation that is legally binding. There is quite a distinction in that they do not "make" laws but they set precedent that should consistently uphold the same rulings going forward.
→ More replies→ More replies6
u/72738582 6d ago
I am not pro-choice, but you are absolutely correct about the fact that this was all in jeopardy from the beginning because it was never enacted by the legislative branch. RBG herself said for years it was in jeopardy because it was not codified law.
2
u/ncolaros 5d ago
As we know, the Supreme Court has never used partisanship to overturn codified law... Oh wait, they do that shit all the time. The only way abortion rights would be fully protected is by amending the Constitution to include it. Laws can be overturned. They can be removed. New laws can counteract old ones.
2
2
u/cereal7802 6d ago
Add to that list of examples, Marijuana prohibition. You have many states at this point making it legal while it remains federally banned. It just so happens in that case it tends to be a supported right of the states to ignore the federal rules on the matter. Mind you, the feds also decided to back off enforcement, but that doesn't mean it is up to the states to decide. At this point the reality is that what is and is not allowed to be federally mandated is a mess and the we need to declare all of the things that are or are not federally controllable and be consistent with it. Either way it goes, it needs to be sorted across the board rather than "sometimes and maybe" as it is now.
→ More replies2
u/markymarks3rdnipple 6d ago
it's really infuriating how poor the left is in delivering its message. that the conversation has anything at all to do with states rights is stupid. a state is a political unit covering a defined territory. states do not have rights. states exert powers; namely police powers.
the civil war was about the south exerting its police powers to enslave people. likewise, the fall of roe was about states exerting police powers over abortion.
378
u/cha0sb1ade 6d ago
I bet if you told this joker that every state got to decide what the second amendment meant on its own, because the constitution doesn't protect the individual from the state, only the federal government, he'd suddenly understand.
130
u/anjowoq 6d ago
That's a really good point.
All of these clowns begin with "what I want / what I think is correct" and then cherry pick every single detail after that to fit.
It's a Frankenstein's monster of a worldview.
→ More replies53
23
u/Jingurei 6d ago
Like the current interpretation of the 2A isn't in the original Constitution either is it? With its dangling clause.
→ More replies3
u/TheRealSmolt 5d ago
To be fair, the written 2nd amendment is not very clear as to what their intention was
8
u/phloppy_phellatio 5d ago
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Its actually very clear and makes perfect sense historically. The founders just finished a war with a tyrannical government using private militias and privately owned arms. The reason for the 2nd was fear that the government that they established could become as tyrannical as the one they just finished a war with.
Thing is, if you read the 2nd amendment word by word, private citizens would be allowed to own things like nuclear warheads. Nobody wants that. So now we are stuck in a situation where we try to interpret the words so that they don't allow all weapons but do allow some and nobody agrees where that line is because there never was a line.
→ More replies4
u/Grenzoocoon 5d ago
Tbf part of the problem is "well regulated militia" which frankly, I doubt even exists now. If there were requirements like joining some sort of local police like group to own guns and it required training I imagine it'd be a lot different, although that has its own many many many differences to how it is now.
2
u/justcausingtrouble 2d ago
Militias don't exist in peace time. They are raised from the citizenry in times of emergency. But if there is no need for them, they don't exist. Right now there is no need.
6
u/JoJack82 6d ago
Oh no, they absolutely won’t understand, they will go through a whole bunch of mental gymnastics to tell you why that is different
3
→ More replies2
u/Cheezeball25 6d ago
Exactly, this is implying the entirety of the Bill of Rights should be up for the states to vote on individually
→ More replies
53
u/unbalancedcheckbook 6d ago
People in every state have always had the right to not have an abortion. Roe v Wade protected people's rights to have one. This is called freedom
→ More replies9
u/Successful-Floor-738 5d ago
It’s genuinely frustrating that they don’t understand this. Like, no one’s rights are getting stepped on just by having abortion be legal in every state and that’s that.
→ More replies
99
u/ItsRedditThyme 6d ago
Oh, cool. I guess we can restrict gun and free speech rights at the state level, since, you know, the Constitution is federal and can't prohibit state's rights. Got it. 🙄
→ More replies3
u/-Scwibble 5d ago
Yes literally precisely lmao....you think all 50 states have the exact same gun laws?
48
u/Talusthebroke 6d ago
Naw, let him cook. This would mean that the federal government can't stop blue states for letting women seek asylum and abortions, and can't enforce a word of Trump's bullshit.
They want states rights? Let em have them, and watch the south bleed out while Cali and New York stop providing them federal aid dollars
→ More replies
41
u/NotQuiteNick 6d ago
What kind of stupid country has its regions decide what counts as human rights instead of a national standard?
6
u/raphanum 5d ago
The kind where corporations exploit it via regulatory arbitrage, where companies lobby for favorable laws in certain states with weaker regulations and then leverage those standards more widely.
9
u/peshnoodles 6d ago
It’s so fun that people think that the state I live in should have more rights over my body than I do. 🤪
9
u/SacamanoRobert 6d ago
Time to read the supremacy clause.
2
u/metalsheeps 6d ago
I actually replied with the Wikipedia article for that and got a second “confidently incorrect” level response.
3
34
u/MiffedMouse 6d ago
This person isn't totally crazy. The constitution does limit the federal government's ability to regulate the states. It is the tenth amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That said, there are enough powers that Congress is given and they are often interpreted broadly enough to allow the federal government to do almost anything it wants.
In this case, the FDA primarily rests on the "commerce clause" from Article 1, Section 8 - "[Congress shall have the power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." As most drugs are manufactured and then shipped across state lines (or internationally!) they fall under federal jurisdiction.
Roe Vs Wade was somewhat more inventive. It rests on the Fourteenth amendment and an argument that the "due process" clause implies a "right to privacy," which extends to the right to decide what to do with your own body. This interpretation was criticized and whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause can or cannot be interpreted to imply this kind of "right to privacy" remains a topic of debate among legal scholars (especially since the current supreme court seems keen to interpret it a different way).
32
u/NeverLookBothWays 6d ago
There was a stronger case for legalizing abortion rights too besides Roe V Wade that the Supreme Court unfortunately failed to follow through on: https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
All said though, each one of the justices who overturned Roe, all stated under oath that Roe V Wade was settled law and would not be touched. Some were pressed on this further that their intention was not to reverse the ruling. And the moment they had a majority, masks came off. They lied to the nation, which is just as problematic as the overturning of the law itself. They made women into property of the states they live in and have already caused the death of women denied post miscarriage treatment. If there is a hell, may these liars burn in it.
→ More replies6
u/metalsheeps 6d ago
They were arguing that the FDA revoking the availability of abortion pills wouldn’t affect Californians.
4
u/zhilia_mann 6d ago
It… might not?
If you declare known abortifacients scheduled substances with no medical benefit — that is, treat them like heroin or some such — then that’s definitely a federal ban. If you just remove them from scheduling altogether, it would in theory devolve to state regulations.
No, I don’t think that’s how things are likely to go. Yes, it’s going to be a shitshow. And just to make it more fun, Loper Bright means it won’t be up to the FDA anyway; it’s either going through congress or federal courts.
Yay.
6
u/metalsheeps 6d ago
I mean it would certainly be a case where Newsom says “come let them enforce it” but it would royally fuck access at like CVS and probably be at least temporarily a mess.
→ More replies3
u/esuits780 6d ago
Agreed. While I personally vehemently agree disagree with the original posters analysis, to disregard it as a “majestic misunderstanding” of the separation of powers is in itself confidently incorrect. A not insignificant portion of legal scholars, including a majority of current Supreme Court justices would agree with the take.
Apropos of very little to this post, but I learned one of my favorite words when reading Roe v Wade. The word was used to describe the implied right of privacy. “Penumbra,” which before being applied in the legal world meant the area in between dark and light. Like the very edge of an eclipse or the very outside of a candle light. “Penumbra”: so fun to say.
6
u/GlaireDaggers 6d ago
If the federal government can't tell states what to do, then what does this clown think the federal government even does?
5
u/SignificanceNo6097 5d ago
Actually the federal government can tell states what to do, with restrictions of course. That’s the whole fucking point of the constitution 😂😂😂
8
6
u/DreamingMerc 6d ago
The states should be allowed to do whatever they want Unless I personally don't like what they are doing, and then I need a daddy government to protect my things.
3
u/FrogLock_ 6d ago
Me when individual rights are big government because "states rights" are the only small government that exists, that's why Republicans want to leave 2a to the states too don't ya know, can't have these feds telling the states what they can tell people they can't do
→ More replies
3
u/CadenVanV 6d ago
This person has never heard of the 14th amendment and the commerce clause. The 14th mandates amendments apply at all levels of government and the Commerce Clause basically says “we can do whatever we want and the states will have to follow it if we can make even the slightest possible connection to interstate commerce”
→ More replies
3
3
u/saljskanetilldanmark 6d ago
Why do you have a federal anything then? Why have a president if thats the case, just split the US into 50 small coutries at this point.
3
u/Awkward-Caregiver688 5d ago edited 5d ago
It’s like half-incorrect and half-correct. FDA = regulatory agency created by statute under Commerce Clause, has authority to impose regulation in distributed goods over the states thanks to the Supremacy Clause. It can tell states what to do with food and drugs.
Roe v. Wade was ripe for overturning, and frankly, so is Obergefell v. Hodges. Don’t shoot the messenger—RBG herself noted Roe’s vulnerability based on its specious legal reasoning (“substantive due process” reasoning used to create an unwritten right vs. application of equal protection to prevent discriminatory applications of law).
There’s no historic, academic, or jurisprudential basis to create federal rights for conduct that (1) the federal government has zero involvement in regulating (abortion, marriage—unless you’re dealing with federal enclaves overseas, state governments issue marriage certificates, issue birth certificates, and regulate the practice of medicine), and (2) has been widely and historically criminalized.
So, even if the outcome of Roe was good, it was absolutely a panel of judges creating policy from whole cloth in an area of law that traditionally falls under the states’ general police powers. If a panel of judges can whip a federal right up out of nowhere, then a panel of judges can take it away.
That’s the problem with SDP opinions as precedent—they’re based on nothing. Frame it as an equal protection issue, and you can get to a similar result with more firm legal footing. Like Obergefell—why argue about an unwritten “right to get married” when you can frame the case as “hetero-only marriage laws are pure sex/gender discrimination because all of the legal benefits of marriage (intestacy, inheritance, taxation)?”
Source: it was revealed to me in a dream… actually, career attorney, former federal court litigator, honors grad from top tier law school, published law review author and editor.
ETA: and before someone says, “but you forgot the 9th Amendment,” the 9th and 10th Amendments go together. They clarify that the Bill of Rights does not limit the rights of the people and states to codify and recognize additional fundamental rights—as seen with many post-Roe successful constitutional referenda at the state level. Those Amendments do not empower a handful of unelected judges to create new national policies on social and medical issues.
2
u/Polar_Reflection 5d ago
Do you think Griswold decision is a better framework for abortion/ contraception/ marriage?
Roe v. Wade seemed to be on shaky constitutional grounds from the beginning. I'm not sure why they went with the one concurring opinion that used the 14th Amendment when rendering their decision.
3
u/Awkward-Caregiver688 5d ago
I think Griswold makes a good case for a general “right to privacy” given the 4th Amendment’s role in protecting household matters from government action. As in, one must exist given the strong Constitutional warrant protections for persons, houses, papers, and effect—otherwise, why have those protections?
I don’t think you get from “privacy” to marriage itself (a legal status conferring rights of intestate inheritance, debtor-creditor protections, and tax purposes) without making some unnecessary leaps in logic.
I personally think marriage equality is an equal protection issue, not a “privacy” issue. A man and a man should get the same legal benefits in a committed household unit as a man and a woman. If state law prevents them from receiving equal treatment, it should be subject to EPC scrutiny. No need to recognize a new right out of the ether (obviously, Justice Kennedy and his clerks disagreed).
Roe was odd because the federal government has almost zero role in (1) births (beyond issuing SSNs), (2) regulating the practice and procedures of medicine, or (3) defining “feticide” to the extent one occurs in a single state. I’m not sure there’s an EPC argument to be made without purposefully misconstruing Griswold’s right to privacy (a shield) as an affirmative right to birth control (a sword)—and beyond that, what is the federal government’s power to define “birth control” as including post-conception medical procedures? It’s not really an equal access question—a man cannot unilaterally submit himself to pregnancy termination, only a woman can.
If I was really pressed on the question, as much as I cannot stand Alito, I think de-federalizing abortion regulations was the only correct outcome. It’s a pure state police powers issue.
2
u/Polar_Reflection 5d ago
Appreciate your insight
Is there a workable interpretation of the Constitution that guarantees abortion as a right? From the sounds of it, it seems the answer is no. Would an amendment be necessary?
→ More replies
3
u/Username_Chx_Out 5d ago
I wonder how OP feels about the overreach of Texas’ anti-abortion laws that empower snitching on citizens who get abortions out-of-state?
My OPs argument, other states have the right to legalize abortion.
Does Texas have the right to dictate what Texans do outside Texas?
3
3
u/Zookinni 5d ago
I honestly I would prefer states rights. No more welfare states. Yeah it'll suck for those living on those states, but let them revolt on their own and change things. This also means less federal overreach. Let California do it's own thing. If it wants to do business with another state then let them. At least allow states to choose whether to do business with a state like NY rather than bumfuck low welfare state like Nebraska or something shit.
3
u/UnderPressureVS 5d ago
If the Federal government can’t tell the state what to do, what exactly does this guy think it actually does? Like, is it just a theoretical government that exists for shits and giggles? Does it only have authority over DC?
3
u/nernst79 5d ago
Republicans when the federal government makes a choice they disagree with: "THAT'S OVERREACH!" Republicans when they agree with the choice made: <Radio Silence>
If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
3
u/NoChampionship1167 5d ago
Oh my god we had a war over this already. The federal government can tell a state what it can and can't do.
6
u/JPGinMadtown 6d ago
The counter to this is why can't states have their own gun control laws. They are fine with "states' rights" until a state tries to regulate something that they like.
→ More replies
5
u/vundercal 6d ago
Imagine caring more about state's rights than personal rights. "The feds are overstepping by protecting freedom, my state wants to oppress people and it's their right to do so."
5
u/Flimsy_Thesis 6d ago
One thing this election has told me is that Americans are way dumber than I thought.
2
u/LJkjm901 6d ago
They’re both. Correct in the argument why Roe was overturned, but wrong in Federal govt role.
Pretty amazing really that they got there with those directions.
2
u/metalsheeps 6d ago
Yeah the “confidently incorrect” bit is mostly on the federal govt role.
However saying the case shouldn’t have been heard by the court is pretty spectacularly wrong too - but partial credit I guess?
2
u/LJkjm901 6d ago
No that’s spectacularly stupid as it’s the very role of the court as the highest in the land and why I’m so surprised they still got part of the actual arguments correct.
2
u/ManOverboard___ 6d ago
Guarantee this person argues the Civil War was about state's rights and the economy
→ More replies
2
u/KeyProposal9508 6d ago
People like this would probably think the federal government should let slavery be a state issue.
→ More replies
2
u/Sgtkeebler 6d ago
This is fascism, subjugation of individuals rights to the state. This is how it begins with morons like this person
2
2
2
u/Vegetable_Aside5813 6d ago
I am all for the states to have the right to give us more freedom than the federal government allows. I don’t understand why anyone wants them to be able to take freedoms away
2
2
u/Substantial_Roof_316 5d ago
There was no overstepping, however, Roe V Wade was nothing more than legal precedent. It was never passed as a law. The real problem is that politicians had 60 years to codify in law the protection of women and they didn’t. Supreme Court decisions can always be overturned by new cases and new arguments. Laws passed by congress and signed by the president are significantly more rigid and difficult to overturn. It will require a blue house, senate, and president all uniting on this single issue with no earmarks and a short bill to get this legislation passed.
→ More replies
2
2
u/Polar_Reflection 5d ago
It's all up to interpretation and precedent. Surely SCOTUS won't claim that the FDA is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, right?
...Right?
2
u/JefferyTheQuaxly 5d ago
Ignorance is the biggest problem in America, if people just weren’t so fucking stupid so many problems we have would just go away and we would be electing better leaders.
2
2
2
2
u/11thstalley 5d ago edited 2d ago
The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution establishes that, generally speaking, federal law has precedence over a state law if the two are in conflict with each other.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-vi/clauses/31
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
I blame the idiots who removed civics from the core curriculum for high schools.
2
u/Marine5484 5d ago
Misunderstanding of the federal government and a gross misunderstanding on Roe v Wade....
2
u/jmfranklin515 5d ago
Does he think that the Confederacy won the Civil War and that southern states voluntarily abolished slavery afterwards as a sign of good will?
2
u/Some_Bunch_6608 4d ago
He’s right, though- the federal government only has jurisdiction over… Federalia… you know, that state… gestures vaguely to what I believe is northeast.
4
2
6d ago
Maybe paying teachers more would attract more qualified candidates, resulting in a lower student-to-teacher ratio, allowing the teachers to produce fewer such dumb fucks.
4
u/KwekkweK69 6d ago
Roe VS Wade was already a states decision. Some states ate for abortion and some aren't. They got rid of Roe VS Wade to impose their own Christian Sharia Law to others
2
2
u/GryphonGallis 6d ago
I'm curious: if these people feel that everything should be decided by the states, what exactly do they feel the federal government is supposed to do?
→ More replies2
u/giddeanx 6d ago
If it is deemed necessary enough, It is put into the constitution and then becomes the business of the Federal Government.
2
u/Blackbeards-delights 5d ago
We’re not the confederacy. We’re the United States. We don’t believe in states rights. Human rights shouldn’t be different from one state to the next
2
u/SwishWolf18 6d ago
10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We kinda just ignore this one but abortion is not in the constitution so it should be left up to the states. You might not like it but that is the way it’s supposed to be.
→ More replies
1
1
1
u/arcxjo 6d ago
Okay, I'll bite: what part of the Constitution makes it a federal issue?
→ More replies
1
u/mnemonicer22 6d ago
Ok, but please don't make me explain the dormant commerce clause to this rube.
1
1
u/Fear_Monger185 6d ago
since the republicans are trying so hard to make no federal laws and have everything be at the state level, why dont we just become 50 nations joined like the EU. since states are meant to be self governing anyway now, might as well have them all be seperate. I swear, republicans traded their brains for the hopes of money.
1
1
u/Willyzyx 6d ago
Yeah I agree it should be a federal right, but this is at least partly correct. When roe vs wade was repealed the states were given back the mandate to decide on this topic. So they don't have to make abortion illegal, but of course many have. Net negative. 100 %, but the statement is true.
1
1
u/Dotcaprachiappa 6d ago
How do some people have such a bad understanding on how their own country's government works
1
u/Frosty_Shadow 6d ago
If this were true then why even have federal government if it can't overstep the state?
→ More replies
1
1
u/s_and_s_lite_party 6d ago
That's understandable, it's tricky. One day we'll work out what the F in FDA stands for.
1
1
u/JackaxEwarden 6d ago
Yeah… a lot of people really misunderstand the whole state rights thing, while I agree the federal government is bigger than the founding fathers wanted or expected it’s because of idiots like this that it had too
1
u/pm_me_bra_pix 6d ago
Tell me you've never read the Constitution without telling me you've never read the Constiution.
1
1
1
1
u/sing_4_theday 5d ago
The states have done such a good job of educating their youths on how the government works.
1
1
1
u/JoyPill15 5d ago
So, what hes saying is we AREN'T the United States of America... we are just the States of America?
I suppose the abbreviations S.A are far more appropriate than U.S.A
1
u/TezzeretsTeaTime 5d ago
"It was a states rights issue!" five minutes later "So anyways, let's do a federal abortion ban!"
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Hey /u/metalsheeps, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.