Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Both true. Each a separate and unconnected argument. I guess I'm still not getting it - are you saying there's a contradiction between these two concepts?
|
I guess I'm asking you to accept ownership of the consequences of the GOP's platform. It's all well and good to overturn RvW because it's bad law, but to get there you said abortion is a matter on which the constitution is silent and thus it is inappropriate for federal
judicial regulation. Now that the GOP Congress has made it clear that fetus personhood is a matter it thinks appropriate for federal
legislative regulation, where do you stand on the constitutional issue?
Keep in mind that the fetus holocaust does not support an answer either way, making the "NARAL=KKK" argument a non-sequitur.
Quote:
|
Do you see any chance this new Act you were speaking of yesterday could be constitutional? I don't, but the idea that it wouldn't be provides the justification for my position that I will get into once I figure out if I remember anything about CON law and I'd hate to find out that I'm wrong and that it would be constitutionally acceptable . . . )
|
I think the act would be constitutional to the extent it applies only to attacks on exclusive federal jurisdictions and enclaves, like federal reservations (military bases, federal parks and the like). However, even then it would be largely redundant of existing state law in many cases because of 18 U.S.C. § 13, the Assimilative Crimes Act. This "across state lines" bullshit is rediculous, unless I shoot a pregnant woman in Arizona while standing in Nevada, in which case I've already committed a crime in two states, either one of which could prosecute.
The GOP is flogging the Laci Peterson case to the detriment of its principles. I'm not surprised, but you should be.
