>the commerce clause says so
No, the Commerce Clause says “To regulate Commerce with forign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes.”
So unless you live in one state, and the doctor you are asking to perform the abortion in another, the commerce clause would not apply.
I have seen the commerce clause, in conjunction with the “necessary and proper” clause at the end of section 8 to justify more federal power grabs than any other clause. (with the “promote the General Wellfare” found in the pre-amble a close second )
And “regulate” in this clause is meant to be “to make regular”, as in equal, fair, etc. It is to keep, say, Indiana from imposing a tarriff on goods from Ohio. Or to prevent Maryland from banning goods made in Pennsylvania. It is not “REGULATE” as we use it by unfortunate precedent today to mean “Completely control”.
>individual states are somehow “ultimately” sovereign
You are correct: they are not ultimately soverign. They must operate within the general framework of the greater republic, and certain rights are NOT granted to the states. These rights denied to the individual states are clearly enumerated in the consitution. They may not mint coin, raise armies, or conduct separate foreign policy, for example. But in issues where the Constitution does not enumerate powers to the federal government, (See Article 9 and 10 of BoR) the states decide how they each want to handle those items.
>I think it’s an attempt to get a free ride on the efforts of others.
I don’t understand how. Please explain further.
Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard all that libertarian crap before. I even used to believe some of it.
When you say, “I have seen the commerce clause, in conjunction with the ‘necessary and proper’ clause at the end of section 8 to justify more federal power grabs than any other clause”, you’re really saying, “I think those clauses should be more narrowly interpreted, but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with me.”
This stuff has been in front of the Supremes, and they almost never take that narrow reading. And it’s been damn good for the country.
>> I think it’s an attempt to get a free ride on the efforts of others.
> I don’t understand how. Please explain further.
I think it’s an attempt to avoid change. To wallow in backward, self-destructive atavism.
It’s a Blotto game — the smaller side wants to force the larger side to fight on more and more battlefields until the larger side’s resources are so spread out that the smaller side can overwhelm them in a few places to claim victory.
Liberal abortion laws make the US a better place — the maternal death rate drops, there are fewer unwanted children, it may even reduce crime rates. Making it a state-level issue will ensure that there are enclaves where one can pretend some sort of moral superiority, while also ensuring that abortion will be available for those “deserving” (which, from a conservative perspective, seems to mean those with money).
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.