Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd like to argue on SEC's behalf. SEC is consistent in her 10th Amendment Jurisprudence. For example, she thinks the Hyde Amendment should be repealed. Likewise, she thinks restricting state laws that might, for example, require that a place that bakes cakes for weddings not discriminate against some of its customers, or limit the sale of sex toys or prophylactics, or criminalize specific forms of sex, or sex with classes of persons, should be respected. She applies the state's rights logic evenly and consistently.
|
I guess I don't know what your point is, exactly:
Hyde Amendment: If, consistent with the 10th Amendment, we take the federal government out of Medicare, Medicaid, and all healthcare spending entirely, then yeah, I am totally ok with no Hyde Amendment. State governments can do as they wish in that regard.
State accomodations statutes: I am also fine with different states having different protected groups and having whatever rules they wish. However, they may not enforce them in a way inconsistent with the constitution (See the record from the CO civil rights commission in Masterpiece (from David French at NR
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...berty-victory/ )
The other stuff: States can't do things or make laws that have been found to be unconstitutional, so again, I don't get your point.
ETA: If your point is that you thought I would believe states should re-implement sodomy laws, sorry to disappoint. Have I not made it clear that my federalism has libertarian leanings?
