A rare Trump vs. MAGA disagreement

[Bn2f]

Not to be a stickler but should we leave politics out of lit? Or at least have a separate group for it? One thing I NEVER discuss with clients when I'm working is politics.

Dunno, just my two cents.

It’s a good question to ask. In another time in history I would probably agree with you, but I think now that time has passed. And, maybe, it needs to go the way of the telephone booth.

 

[SevMax2]

Let's be realistic and honest here. The MAGAs are going to use the Comstock Act to backdoor not only a national abortion ban, but also a national contraceptive ban if they can manage it. That's the reality of it, not some proposed delegation to the "states." Even under Roe, they pushed a "partial-birth abortion" ban and other such laws, federally as well as at the state level. Let's not kid ourselves on this.

 

[YDB95]

It's also mighty interesting how the only people who believe the Republicans "only wanted to return the decision to the states" are the same ones who would like to see a nationwide ban.

 

[JustKjell]

Eh, I'm staying clear from this right now. While I'm not shy to state my political opinion, it's not why I joined this board. Plenty of other places to get into heated discussed. I came here for a different kind of heat ;-)

 

[Lazaran]

Eh, I'm staying clear from this right now. While I'm not shy to state my political opinion, it's not why I joined this board. Plenty of other places to get into heated discussed. I came here for a different kind of heat ;-)

Noted…

 

[Politruk]

Let's be realistic and honest here. The MAGAs are going to use the Comstock Act to backdoor not only a national abortion ban, but also a national contraceptive ban if they can manage it.

Heh-heh . . . heh-heh . . . He said "backdoor."

 

[Rightguide]

There is a rare policy disagreement brewing between convicted felon presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the MAGA faithful.

Trump is insisting that after "his" Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision that it is now up to individual states to determine whether or not they want abortion to be legal. Six states have codified this in their state constutution, with six more constitutional state amendments on the ballot in November.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is the only possible solution to abortion,

The Federalist Society has spent millions urging MAGA to work towards federal legislation outlawing abortion at the federal level, superceding states rights, and MAGA seems to now be keen on this idea.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is also the only possible solution to abortion.

The solution is it's a state issue.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

There is a rare policy disagreement brewing between convicted felon presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the MAGA faithful.

Trump is insisting that after "his" Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision that it is now up to individual states to determine whether or not they want abortion to be legal. Six states have codified this in their state constutution, with six more constitutional state amendments on the ballot in November.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is the only possible solution to abortion,

The Federalist Society has spent millions urging MAGA to work towards federal legislation outlawing abortion at the federal level, superceding states rights, and MAGA seems to now be keen on this idea.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is also the only possible solution to abortion.

He goes by tampon tim Rapey now.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The solution is it's a state issue.

Basic healthcare should not be subject to regional fickleness and disparities.
Basic healthcare should be the same throughout the country.
We are not the same.

 

[Rightguide]

Basic healthcare should not be subject to regional fickleness and disparities.
Basic healthcare should be the same throughout the country.
We are not the same.

It isn't in the Constitution so it is a state issue. Let the states decide. You live in a Republic, remember? Even Roe itself had restrictions.

 

[adrina]

It isn't in the Constitution so it is a state issue. Let the states decide. You live in a Republic, remember? Even Roe itself had restrictions.

Things not in the Constitution held as binding law:
Executive privilege
Qualified immunity
Jury of peers

Etc

 

[adrina]

9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

 

[Politruk]

9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Nobody really knows what that one is supposed to mean. Likewise with the 10th. There is very little case law on them.

 

[adrina]

Nobody really knows what that one is supposed to mean. Likewise with the 10th. There is very little case law on them.

Most trumpers really don't know anything about the Constitution except for what they think they want to happen, how they want things to be.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It isn't in the Constitution so it is a state issue. Let the states decide. You live in a Republic, remember? Even Roe itself had restrictions.

Roe had FEDERAL restrictions that ensured a level playing field in all states.

Hey, you know what also "isn't in the Constitution"?

The federal government mandate to drive on the right hand side of the road in America.

Your situational outrage doesn't seem to apply here, does it? Even without constitutional direction!

Why? Because giving each state to determine which side of the road to drive on would have a direct impact on your health and safety!

And if it affects you PERSONALLY, we all know your ethics are completely flexible. That...that....THAT'S DIFFERENT

"Rules for thee but not for me!"

 

[SevMax2]

Nobody really knows what that one is supposed to mean. Likewise with the 10th. There is very little case law on them.

There was genuine concern that if certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution, there would be an argument made that no other rights existed or were guaranteed. Hence the Ninth Amendment, meant as a "catch-all" for any rights not protected by any other amendment.

 

[Politruk]

Let the states decide. You live in a Republic, remember?

That is a non-sequitur. Republican government has nothing whatsoever to do with federal/decentralized government. There is no connection between the two, none at all.

France has a unitary system of government. Germany has a federal system. France is just as good a republic.

 

[Rightguide]

Roe had FEDERAL restrictions that ensured a level playing field in all states.

Hey, you know what also "isn't in the Constitution"?

The federal government mandate to drive on the right hand side of the road in America.

Your situational outrage doesn't seem to apply here, does it? Even without constitutional direction!

Why? Because giving each state to determine which side of the road to drive on would have a direct impact on your health and safety!

And if it affects you PERSONALLY, we all know your ethics are completely flexible. That...that....THAT'S DIFFERENT

"Rules for thee but not for me!"

You can drive on the other side of the road anytime you want to, doing so could solve all of your problems, but just for your edification, the federal government primarily regulates highway driving rules under its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. This authority is derived from the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Secondly the United States Congress established the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which set in place federal vehicle safety standards and provided incentives for states to adopt uniform traffic laws. Thus, while driving regulations are primarily a state responsibility, federal authority plays a significant role in shaping those regulations through its power over interstate commerce and funding programs.

A mulitude of laws governing the spectrum of life and business are different from state to state. They exist in a Republic.

My ethics are carved in stone, solid and unwavering

 

[Politruk]

A mulitude of laws governing the spectrum of life and business are different from state to state. They exist in a Republic.

You do understand, don't you, that the second sentence has nothing at all to do with the first?