If you follow the SCOTUS which has the power to interpret the Constitution, you would know that the 19th amendment is not interpreted literally - half of the federal laws and regulations would be void under the literal interpretation. Keep up. |
10th amendment. |
Isn't that what SCOTUS already did, with the Chevron case? They basically said the Executive Branch no longer has the power to promulgate enforceable regulations to interpret the laws handed to them by Congress. |
No. The reversal of the Chevron doctrine means there will no longer be "deference" to federal agencies when they interpret the Statute (by promulgating Regulations) under which they operate (some people refer to them as the "Administrative State" or "Deep State"). The 10th Amendment has not been "interpreted" literally for many decades. SCOTUS is slowly making rulings that over decades, may return some of the governmental powers that were given to the federal government in the past several decades. |
Take the loss. Attempting to move abortion which is a state issue to the federal level violates the constitution and the courts acknowledge this. Learn to read. |
That means the court will ignore the domain expertise and subject matter expertise of the agencies, it will ignore the numerous rounds of review and public input that went into rulemaking, the fact that both chambers of Congress are included for review, oversight and approval of rulemaking, the fact that GAO is involved in review, oversight of rulemaking and so on. The "unelected bureaucrats with no oversight" comments that the right wing loves and their "deep state" ooga-booga have never been rooted in much reality. There's no coordinated shadow government out there meeting in some secret government bunker, coordinating, plotting and scheming how to screw over conservatives and hurt businesses. And there's a ton of oversight. But instead now the decisions will go to courts, with unelected rogue judges who have NO oversight or accountability, NO checks and balances other than hoping a different, unelected, unaccountable higher court will overturn or that the judge will die and be replaced by another unelected, unaccountable judge. It's a step backward from checks and balances. |
I have yet to see anyone make a solid argument about how it "violates the constitution" other than "it's not in the constitution." 99% of what's been upheld by courts isn't explicitly in the constitution, either. |
To wit: corporations are "people" with 1st Amendment rights. |
One glib answer might be "well Congress will have to write clear laws" except that ignores that things constantly change in industry. There are constantly new technologies being developed, new chemicals, new products and so on. Congress cannot keep up with all of that. They NEED to defer to agencies because they absolutely lack the capacity. The courts lack the capacity to keep up as well. And that's why Congress has had to write laws with the right balance of specificity yet also leaving enough of it open to interpretation so that it can deal with a rapidly changing landscape. Congress cannot specify everything down to the last iota. |
And "money = speech" which tramples my speech because someone with more money has big amplifiers to drown out everyone else in the room. |
Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said Roe v Wade was a badly construed ruling. It was always fiction that kept it alive longer than it should have been. Moving abortion back to the states has allowed people to have greater input over the laws, which is what it should be, and it is through the voters and elected officials that we are inching towards a new and more stable abortion policy in the US rather than some immovable ruling that infuriated too many people for too many decades. Had the voters been allowed to vote, state by state, on abortion starting in the 60s/70s, we'd have EU style abortion compromise laws right now across most of the country that would make most people happy and it wouldn't even be a topic any more. |
What a crazy fantasy. The EU countries' abortion laws must be seen in the context of the social safety net those countries provide to pregnant women and children. They all have universal health care, generous maternal and paternal leave, subsidized child care, and a monthly child benefit payment. If the GOP were truly "pro-life" they would support these programs in our country too. |
Yes, Roe was poorly constructed. But that absolutely does not rule out the possibility of Congress codifying Roe into law. SCOTUS wouldn't have a terribly strong footing in trying to overturn it. |
This is BS. Abortion in the EU is seen as what it is, a very difficult subject because there's the interest of the mother AND the interest of the baby, especially when already viable, so they had to find some reasomable compromise. In the US there are no adults in the room in either party. |
That’s exactly the point. If it isn’t listed explicitly or an interstate issue, it’s bumped back to the states. |