HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Federal judge finds femal...

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:46 PM

Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional

Source: Chicago Tribune

In a major blow to the government, a federal judge in Detroit has declared the nation’s female genital mutilation law unconstitutional, thereby dismissing nearly all of the charges against two Michigan doctors and seven others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to genital cutting in the nation’s first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation in America. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 50 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

Friedman’s ruling stems from a request by Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and her co-defendants to dismiss the genital mutilation charges, claiming the law they are being prosecuted under is unconstitutional.

Read more: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-female-genital-mutilation-law-20181120-story.html

131 replies, 10712 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 131 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional (Original post)
Calista241 Nov 2018 OP
pscot Nov 2018 #1
Merlot Nov 2018 #2
rpannier Nov 2018 #18
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #101
bobGandolf Nov 2018 #105
Merlot Nov 2018 #110
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #112
bloom Nov 2018 #128
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #131
DURHAM D Nov 2018 #3
alwaysinasnit Nov 2018 #7
DURHAM D Nov 2018 #9
lagomorph777 Nov 2018 #76
olegramps Nov 2018 #79
whathehell Nov 2018 #4
spooky3 Nov 2018 #6
whathehell Nov 2018 #8
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #102
whathehell Nov 2018 #114
dlk Nov 2018 #5
Fullduplexxx Nov 2018 #72
iDOcareDoyou Nov 2018 #84
CaptainTruth Nov 2018 #10
jberryhill Nov 2018 #23
pnwmom Nov 2018 #62
jberryhill Nov 2018 #71
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #103
sinkingfeeling Nov 2018 #11
jberryhill Nov 2018 #22
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #104
scarletwoman Nov 2018 #12
jberryhill Nov 2018 #13
Takket Nov 2018 #49
jberryhill Nov 2018 #51
spooky3 Nov 2018 #65
Takket Nov 2018 #86
jberryhill Nov 2018 #88
LanternWaste Nov 2018 #90
Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #113
X_Digger Nov 2018 #120
Takket Nov 2018 #124
jberryhill Nov 2018 #125
olegramps Nov 2018 #81
jberryhill Nov 2018 #87
olegramps Nov 2018 #92
jberryhill Nov 2018 #93
olegramps Nov 2018 #95
jberryhill Nov 2018 #94
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #107
X_Digger Nov 2018 #119
7962 Nov 2018 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #106
lostnfound Nov 2018 #15
rpannier Nov 2018 #19
jberryhill Nov 2018 #29
LanternWaste Nov 2018 #78
lostnfound Nov 2018 #117
elleng Nov 2018 #16
lostnfound Nov 2018 #17
Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #38
LiberalFighter Nov 2018 #20
pnwmom Nov 2018 #21
iluvtennis Nov 2018 #24
4du Nov 2018 #25
jberryhill Nov 2018 #50
4du Nov 2018 #91
AlexSFCA Nov 2018 #26
jberryhill Nov 2018 #28
pnwmom Nov 2018 #32
jberryhill Nov 2018 #41
jberryhill Nov 2018 #53
pnwmom Nov 2018 #63
DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #35
jberryhill Nov 2018 #37
DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #42
jberryhill Nov 2018 #43
DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #45
jberryhill Nov 2018 #46
DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #57
jberryhill Nov 2018 #58
DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #61
Cold War Spook Nov 2018 #100
DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #116
marybourg Nov 2018 #56
underthematrix Nov 2018 #27
PoindexterOglethorpe Nov 2018 #30
sakabatou Nov 2018 #31
RandySF Nov 2018 #33
LogicFirst Nov 2018 #34
Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #40
jberryhill Nov 2018 #44
Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #52
jberryhill Nov 2018 #54
Solly Mack Nov 2018 #36
benld74 Nov 2018 #39
jmowreader Nov 2018 #47
jberryhill Nov 2018 #48
William Seger Nov 2018 #60
angrychair Nov 2018 #68
jberryhill Nov 2018 #75
angrychair Nov 2018 #89
jberryhill Nov 2018 #83
Sgent Nov 2018 #69
A DAY IN THE LIFE Nov 2018 #80
Takket Nov 2018 #55
RDANGELO Nov 2018 #59
Initech Nov 2018 #64
burrowowl Nov 2018 #66
jcmaine72 Nov 2018 #67
ansible Nov 2018 #70
jberryhill Nov 2018 #73
Post removed Nov 2018 #98
jberryhill Nov 2018 #99
jberryhill Nov 2018 #74
jcmaine72 Nov 2018 #77
erpowers Nov 2018 #82
jberryhill Nov 2018 #85
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #109
X_Digger Nov 2018 #121
tammywammy Nov 2018 #96
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #108
bitterross Nov 2018 #111
jberryhill Nov 2018 #115
Cicada Nov 2018 #127
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2018 #97
treestar Nov 2018 #118
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #122
X_Digger Nov 2018 #123
liberal N proud Nov 2018 #126
bloom Nov 2018 #129
jberryhill Nov 2018 #130

Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:48 PM

1. That's fucked up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:50 PM

2. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman...hope his career nosedives with this ruling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:20 PM

18. He appears to be a Libertarian extremist

In 2014, struck down Michigan's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage and presided over the ceremony of the plaintiffs

He appears to be a Libertarian extremist as it relates to government rules and regulations (protections). This case rests on his opposition to the federal government, not state government, from imposing restrictions. His decision seems to be cheered by the loonies at Reason and the federalist society

He's also been on the bench longer than the idea of God existing. He's been a lawyer for almost half-a-century, on the bench since at least the mid-80s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 07:47 PM

101. Apparently you don't understand the reason for the decision.

The federal statute was declared unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, not because the judge thinks FGM is a good thing, or even an acceptable thing, but because there was found to be no significant effect on interstate commerce arising from this particular crime. That's why most crimes are based on state rather than federal law; there has to be some kind of nexus with interstate commerce or some other specifically stated, pervasive federal interest. The decision had nothing to do with the substantive elements of the crime. If the judge had ruled otherwise he would have been wrong on the law.

The statute was poorly drafted. If Congress wants to do it right they can amend it to include language stating that it applies in all cases where a person is transported across state lines for the purpose of accomplishing the crime, or words to that effect. Then it would be constitutional, but it wouldn't apply to any cases that were completely intrastate. Those cases would have to be prosecuted under state law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #101)


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #101)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:37 PM

110. I understand that FGM is never acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #110)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:48 PM

112. Of course it isn't. But there are legal remedies that work and ones that don't.

The federal statute was poorly drafted; the way to attack this crime is currently through state law. Some states have FGM laws and others don't. If your state does not, start lobbying your legislature to pass one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #112)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 10:06 AM

128. This can only seem reasonable if you don't really care about the problem.

There is no reason why FGM should not be illegal at a National level. Obviously, that is the more efficent means for it being illegal.

At the very least, it should remain illegal at the National level until state wide laws are in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Reply #128)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 01:56 PM

131. I didn't write the Commerce Clause.

Right now the law says there isn't a federal remedy. That's not the same as not caring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:51 PM

3. Okay. Cut off his penis and see how he likes it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:55 PM

7. Without any pain meds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alwaysinasnit (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:00 PM

9. He can have an aspirin.

Even if he holds it between his knees that won't help however because of well...positioning of his thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 09:50 AM

76. That's probably a good idea. Crazy people should not be allowed to carry weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:09 AM

79. Well it is evident that he doesn't have any testicals making the operation quick easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:52 PM

4. It must be appealed.

It is absolutely outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:53 PM

6. agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:00 PM

8. Yes, or else we wont be laughing

at Oklahoma for passing statutes against Sharia Law anymore. Effing Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 07:48 PM

102. On the law, specifically the application of the Commerce Clause, the judge was correct.

And the case is now being prosecuted under state law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #102)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 09:30 PM

114. Whatever

As long as the sibstance is struck down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:53 PM

5. Elections Have Consequences, Including the Gift of Misogynistic Federal Judges

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:19 AM

72. Yes they do ...and people will learn they HAVE to vote or they will have more of this

Vote or suffer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:48 AM

84. That is why WE NEED A VIABLE CANDIDATE - Beto for 2020 - PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION .. ..

 

Call For Beto to Run in 2020
Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke for President of the US

Please SIGN THE PETITION at:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/836/708/820/

WHY URGE BETO TO RUN?

Beto’s unvarnished approach is refreshing to older people, and intoxicating to the younger generation.
- Mikal Watts, a San Antonio-based lawyer

“He is the real deal . . . charismatic . . . thoughtful . . . able”
- Cappy McGarr, a Dallas-based investor

The Democratic Party has historically liked young, ambitious and aspirational people like . . . Robert Kennedy or a Barack Obama. (Beto) is a game changer . . . you can’t deny the electricity and excitement around the guy.
- Robert Wolf, an investment banker

. . . he is charismatic as heck . . . and Democratic voters are craving for newer faces outside the traditional Northeast / California corridors. Even in Texas . . . has a lot of “wow factor”, and one could easily say that although he did not win this time . . . He would carry Texas in a National campaign!
- Steve Westly, former California state controller

PLEASE MAKE COPIES of this support for Beto and Post / Pass on to like-minded friends

Please SIGN THE PETITION at:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/836/708/820/


Please SIGN THE PETITION at:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/836/708/820/


Please SIGN THE PETITION at:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/836/708/820/

PLEASE MAKE COPIES of this support for Beto and Post / Pass on to like-minded friends




#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:01 PM

10. This is against the girls' will. It is assault & battery with bodily injury.

Prosecute them for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:28 PM

23. There is no federal law against assault and battery

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:44 AM

62. There is a federal hate crime law.

This is an assault on people with an animus toward a specific gender.

It has no medical benefit. It is nothing but an assault, designed to damage a female's sexual response.

I think they should appeal on that basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 06:57 AM

71. You think they should appeal on what basis?

 


You think they should appeal the dismissal of the FGM counts on the basis of things they didn’t charge the defendant with?

Ummm, okay, I’m out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 07:51 PM

103. Yes, and as was pointed out in another thread,

the federal hate crimes statute applies only to crimes committed in or affecting interstate commerce, which saves that statute from the same fate as the federal FGM statute. As far as an appeal is concerned, you can't appeal on an issue that wasn't raised before the trial court, so if they didn't claim to the trial judge that the hate crimes statute applied to this case, they can't raise that issue on appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:02 PM

11. Congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws against human mutilation?

Then, we're all free to cut up whomever we wish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:25 PM

22. The absence of a federal law doesn't mean something is legal under state law

 


26 states have laws against FGM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 07:57 PM

104. It does, but only if the statute specifies that the specific crime being prosecuted has a nexus with

interstate commerce or some other significant federal interest. Under the Constitution our federal system limits the ability of Congress to pass laws that don't directly affect a particular federal interest, and for that reason most crimes other than those that occur in interstate commerce or communication (like mail fraud, kidnapping across state lines, etc.) are state crimes and are prosecuted in state courts. The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution did not delegate to the federal government the power to prosecute all crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:02 PM

12. What the fucking hell!?!?

It's child abuse!!! How hard is that? Are laws against child abuse also unconstitutional?

I'm just speechless...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:15 PM

13. Identify a federal law against child abuse.

 


What most people don’t realize is that there are categories of laws which are primarily state laws. There’s no federal law against rape, murder, and a whole lot of things that are and should be illegal.

To be clear, there are federal laws against, for example, killing a federal official and certain other categories where there is a specific hook into federal jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:57 AM

49. There is a federal law against child abuse right in the OP

Or there was until this bozo threw it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:01 AM

51. What about beating children?

 

How about murdering children?

Why is there no federal law against murdering children?

And while you ponder that, can I point out that 26 states have laws against FGM. Do you know or care whether it is legal in your state?

And if you don’t know or care whether it is legal in your state, then why does this decision bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 02:15 AM

65. But you are moving the goalposts. S/he answered

Your question. There WAS a federal law outlawing the practice. There were reasons given in the article as to why one side thought it was justified (eg, because interstate commerce was involved in several ways) and the other side did not. So let’s see if the issue is as black and white as you suggest if it is appealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:00 PM

86. I'm from Michigan

We were ground zero for this horrific crime and we passed a state level law but it was TOO LATE after the crime was committed.

A posted a link below about the problem with the federal law is that it is too weak. But it WAS better than nothing.

So am I to understand from the ruling the judge made that Congress cannot pass a law that isn’t related to regulating commerce? And do any law outside those bounds exist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:18 PM

88. In answer to your question, Congress can do the following:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

------------

Those are the powers of Congress. We wrote them down, so we'd know what they are. But, for most instances, if it's not on that list (or can be shoehorned as necessary and proper for doing something on that list), then Congress doesn't have the power to do it.

There are some additional powers granted to Congress in several of the Amendments. So in answer to your question:

"So am I to understand from the ruling the judge made that Congress cannot pass a law that isn’t related to regulating commerce?"

No, Congress can pass laws on a lot of subjects, and can pass laws appropriate to doing any of the various things Congress is empowered to do.

THIS law, however, was passed on two premises: (1) that it was required from a treaty obligation, and (2) that it was permitted under the Commerce clause. The decision addresses both of those points. The outcome is debatable, but virtually nobody here understands what the debate is even about.

The federal government is extremely powerful when it comes to those areas in which the federal government actually has power to do something or which have some relationship to interstate commerce.

Federal criminal law really got going when things like trains and, particularly, automobiles became readily available. That is why, for example, the FBI was created to administer a whole host of new laws that came into being when it became clear that people could do things like rob banks, get away in cars, and then go to other states relatively quickly, and thus evade arrest by police enforcing the laws of any single state.

For run-of-the-mill things generally categorized as "offenses against the person" - murder, assault/battery, sexual assault, robbery (not of a federally insured bank), etc. - there just aren't general federal laws, since those are things which fall under state powers to police various sorts of behaviors.

It wasn't really until the 14th Amendment that states even had to protect the federally-protected rights of individual citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #88)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:36 PM

90. I like to pretend no one knows what's being discussed either.

"nobody here understands what the debate is even about. ..."

It certainly allows us to validate our own alleged cleverness at the expense of everyone else's. And slight them as well. It's an absolute win/win for our unique brand of pretentious petulance.



I know, I know... we shouldn't admit it aloud, but damn-- you're just so efficient at it I can't help but feel jealous. And since you understand it all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:50 PM

113. Jberryhill is correct though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #90)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 11:04 PM

120. You're beginning to sound like a climate change denier.

"Why listen to those pointy-headed climate scientists, anyone can look outside and see what the weather is."

When someone with domain knowledge speaks about that subject, it makes sense to pay fucking attention rather than trying to score cheap points.

Ah fuck it, for a second I forgot who I was talking to. Carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #88)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 12:32 AM

124. So... analogous...

Why is it marijuana distributing is still a federal crime I can be arrested for even in a state where it is legal? Colorado...

Article about it...


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/4/16849866/marijuana-legalization-trump-sessions-cole-memo?_gl=1*19771nm*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #124)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 06:52 AM

125. Interstate commerce

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:18 AM

81. It is just another example of the how states rights lead to a hodgepodge of ridiculous laws.

There should be one set of laws for all the citizens of the nation. It just an example to the extent to which the congress had to compromise to get the constitution passed. It has lead to the abridgement of peoples' rights based on religious bias. Just consider the liquor laws for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #81)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:03 PM

87. So, the recreational lobster catch limit should be the same in Florida, Maine and Nebraska?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 02:51 PM

92. When you start catching lobsters in Nebraska let me know.

I would respectfully suggest that it would be helpful to read the Federal Papers in which each of these issues is covered at great length and most importantly the reason for the necessity of granting states rights to get the necessary support for ratification. Please just consider the issue on slavery and its dire results from that compromise which not only tolerated a evil institution but in the end resulted in the massive cost of lives and property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 02:55 PM

93. Well, surely the laws concerning snow removal are the same in Florida and Maine

 


On "stuff that matters" the trend is toward uniform state codes, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #93)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 03:19 PM

95. Firstly regarding the lobsters:

The problem with the diversity of laws regulating lobster fishing were so diverse that the situation resulted in the formation if the Atlantic
States Fisheries Commission to establish uniform regulations across the Atlantic sea board states. The situation became so dire that the harvesting of lobsters in the Long Island Sound has reached a critical point. The major problem appears to be due to climate changes that have increased the water temperatures to the extent that the entire industry is threatened.

The most logical solution is the establishment of regulations by a board that studies the effects and requirements for not only the American coastline but one that could negotiate international regulations. This is also a problem with regulation of commercial operations by foreign commercial operations that can not be addressed by individual states. So, what was the solution. The intervention of the federal government to write and negotiate laws. It escapes me as how a state government would go about negotiating a law with a foreign government without federal government recognition unless you establish each state as recognized independent sovereign nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 03:06 PM

94. I caught crabs there once

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #81)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:09 PM

107. Have a look at the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #81)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 10:59 PM

119. We are a union of states.

What you propose is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:17 PM

14. This decision MUST be appealed. These savages must not be allowed to continue this barbarism.

 

I dont see how the judge can say Congress doesnt have the authority to pass the law; thats what Congress DOES. Its not an unconstitutional law, so whats the deal??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:06 PM

106. The law is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.

All federal statutes that purport to regulate something, including crimes, have to regulate something that occurs in or affects interstate commerce or a pervasive federal interest. An appeal would be unsuccessful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:18 PM

15. Appointed by Reagan. He did rule in favor of same sex marriage in 2014

Seems like the pursuit of happiness is being denied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:22 PM

19. Reading his bio and articles from his 'admirers' he seems to be a Libertarian extremist

Reason magazine and the federalist society like him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:49 PM

29. Pursuit of happiness?

 


Please tell me that you understand that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 10:39 AM

78. Who argued it did appear there?

Goodness... you're certainly getting rather melodramatic, moving goalposts and placing unsupported motives onto people merely concerned with this case ruling.

Seems somewhat irrational on its whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 08:58 AM

117. "No duh."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:19 PM

16. Without jumping, folks should note:

'Nagarwala has maintained she committed no crime and is being prosecuted under a law that slid through Congress without proper vetting.

“The law was never debated on the floor of either chamber of Congress nor was there ever any legislative hearing addressing the justification or need for the federal law. Instead, all that exists is the criminal statute itself,” defense lawyers have argued in court documents, claiming the driving force behind the legislation was one lawmaker’s belief that the prohibited conduct was ‘repulsive and cruel.’”

But the Constitution demands more than that, the defense has argued, claiming Congress could not have passed a female genital mutilation ban under the Commerce Clause because “notably, here, the activity being regulated has absolutely no effect on interstate commerce.”'

It will, finally, be decided properly, as it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:20 PM

17. So if a religion believed in removing a lung or a kidney in children, would that be okay?

As long as it didn’t become too “commercial”?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:23 AM

38. It would have to be against a state law.

I would imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:24 PM

20. IMO Dr Nagarwala needs to lose her medical license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:25 PM

21. Why isn't it a civil rights violation? There is no comparable procedure

performed on boys, and it has ZERO medical benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:31 PM

24. +++ agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:33 PM

25. How can The case is set to go to trial in April 2019?

 

If judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4du (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:58 AM

50. Because there are two other crimes remaining to be tried

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:39 PM

91. Thank you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:39 PM

26. that's freedom of religion to you

the doctors don’t get charged with crime for performing this irreversible surgery on minors? Can they keep their license?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSFCA (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:48 PM

28. The ruling has nothing to do with freedom of religion

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:17 AM

32. What about a civil rights violation, as a gender-based assault? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:26 AM

41. Here's what is frustrating about press accounts and general legal ignorance here

 


“The most serious charge against Nagarwala — conspiracy to transport a minor “with intent to engage in criminal sexual conduct” — carries a maximum life sentence.”

Like MOST criminal prosecutions, the defendants are charged with a variety of things. Some of these will get seeded out in preliminary motions. But the classic reaction as demonstrated in this thread is failure to comprehend that this ruling in no way means that anyone is walking free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:06 AM

53. I believe you will find this article eye opening

 


24 states do not outlaw FGM. This case is actually the first time anyone has been tried under the federal FGM statute, because Michigan didn’t have one.

https://m.mic.com/articles/182161/24-states-have-no-laws-against-female-genital-mutilation-heres-why-that-needs-to-change#.lOv4d3Fn7

If you care about this issue, please find out what the law is in your state, and find some way to support those working to enact one in your state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:52 AM

63. Thanks. I've found a site that lists legislation by state and I'll post it.. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:21 AM

35. "but rather engaged in a benign religious ritual..." But tell us again about what it isn't about.

 

They invoked religion. Not the judge, not the victims.

Not only are they pretending that *poof* the law (which they broke, but are saying isn't a law when clearly it is since they were prosecuted under it) suddenly appeared when it has a clear legislative history... AND this judge accepted this argument...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:22 AM

37. Did you read the actual decision?

 


Or some reporters idea of what the case was about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:26 AM

42. So the defense explicitly stating it was a benign religious ritual is...?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:38 AM

43. Has jack shit to do with the limits of Article I legislative power

 



News flash - the US Congress can’t simply make things illegal because they are “bad”.

Do you know there is no federal law against murder? If I go shoot my neighbor to death, the feds can’t touch me.

In order for Congress to make something illegal, it has to fall within a set of enumerated topics in the Constititution about which Congress can make a law.

Here’s the actual decision, and not some reporter’s notion. Now you quote to me the part about religious practice:

https://content-static.detroitnews.com/pdf/2018/US-v-Nagarwala-dismissal-order-11-20-18.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:47 AM

45. You understand the line came from verbal arguments, right? Made in court? During proceedings?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:51 AM

46. I see you are a fast reader

 


Can you point to anything in athat decision which relies on any argument having to do with religious practices?

If you make ten arguments about something, and I agree with one of those ten arguments and use it as a basis for a decision, it means your other nine arguments sucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:22 AM

57. I think I see what's going on here. I'm not on the judge, though I think it's the wrong decision...

 

"They invoked religion. Not the judge, not the victims."

I explicitly excused the judge from making it about religion. The defense said it, described the procedure as such. Not as a medical procedure, but a benign religious ritual. I have been at no point banged on about the judge's opinion, and won't contest you on it, but you attacked the very notion of this case having anything to do with religion when the defense very explicitly stated religion was part of this, the very core incident was, among other things. Your laser focus is on the judge's ruling opinion rather than the case as a whole leading up to it. Nothing wrong with that and I'm not faulting you for it. The defense directly injected religion as part of their argument, not the court.

Orthodox Jews have a similar "benign religious ritual" that's been of some controversy. The practice of circumcising baby boys and the rabbi briefly sucking on the penis to draw blood out. Not for sexual pleasure, and the baby sure as fuck doesn't like it, but to serve an explicitly religious imperative. There is no medical reason for any part of this to be done (less drastic observances use a sponge to soak the blood), and indeed some children have died from infections caught as a result of this mouth-to-penis contact, yet it remains debated.

I'm not terribly interested in circling around with you on this. We've stated what we will and seem to be missing each others' viewpoint. I'm not looking at the judge like you are. You think I'm accusing the judge of making it about religion and I'm not. If he were it'd be explicit in his ruling. I believe there are at least two mentions of religion in the ruling, in citing broader law or regulation. Not the core of his ruling but incidental to it as necessary provision of larger legal context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:23 AM

58. No one has ever overturned a state anti-FGM law on religious freedom grounds.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:29 AM

61. Ok, but again, not part of any of my argument. You said religion wasn't part of this...

 

The defense themselves said it was. You focused on the judge's ruling, which is fine, I focused on the statement you made and the defense saying clearly the opposite. Round and round we go and I don't think either of us enjoys it much.

I would hope, at the very least, we both think FGM is wrong and should be banned by proper measures. Can we at least agree on that point and get off this merry-go-round?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 07:38 PM

100. Rabbis do not have anything to do with a circumcision.

 

A mohel does it. Doctors are split on whether it is medically good or medically bad. Whereas you will find very few doctors who are for circumcisions of females.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold War Spook (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 22, 2018, 12:55 AM

116. A mohel can be either a doctor, a rabbi or a cantor. It's whoever has the training. I was imprecise.

 

The Torah states it should be the father who preforms it, but not many dads are comfortable chopping Jr's dick hence designating a mohel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:21 AM

56. Thank you. Now if folks here would only read and comprehend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:42 PM

27. I think this will be overturned unless the defendants can prove they mutilate boys in the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:56 PM

30. Okay then.

Let's genitally mutilate him, if he thinks it's okay.

And no pain relief of any kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:02 AM

31. WTF?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:17 AM

33. Reagan appointee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:18 AM

34. Republican

A Reagan republican. He is the reason that there must be term limits. He's a 75 yo white male.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LogicFirst (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:24 AM

40. who apparently understands the commerce clause of the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:45 AM

44. Good luck

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:06 AM

52. I mean, I think FGM should a crime in every state of the union

I also think the Constitution was constructed for a time that no longer exists even in approximation, and if I were writing it today I'd probably have the federal government responsible for some more things than were outlined for it in the 18th century.

But if we are gonna be all rule of law (and we should be) we gotta work with the structure we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:09 AM

54. This article is excellent

 

There’s a reason this federal law has actually mever been used before, and why they spun the wheel on this case:

https://m.mic.com/articles/182161/24-states-have-no-laws-against-female-genital-mutilation-heres-why-that-needs-to-change#.lOv4d3Fn7

The real crime here are the 24 states that dont have an FGM law. Michigan didn’t have one, which is why this was the first time out for this federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:21 AM

36. That's sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:23 AM

39. Mother Trucker!

WTF is wrong with this dim witted excuse for a judge?
Talk about judicial activists
This guy reeks of it
How
Why
What is his basis?
🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:51 AM

47. Strangely enough, this is a good ruling

FGM is one of the worst atrocities religion has inflicted on the human condition. It must be stomped out everywhere. And (insert deity here) it will be stomped out everywhere.

This law is unconstitutional not because anyone thinks FGM is a good thing - if you do, please report to an all-female boxing gym to have your lights punched out - but because in America's legal system, the feds can only write laws that affect relations between the states or that affect interstate commerce. Anything that stops at the state line belongs to the states to regulate. If they would have written up a model anti-FGM law, presented it to the states, and told them "pass this law or we'll cut off your highway funds" - which they do a lot - that would have been okay. Writing a federal law instead of having the states write their own laws is not okay.

About all the feds could do is write a Mann Act-style law that criminalizes transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of receiving FGM. It would probably be unenforceable...for one thing, you'd have to prove that someone traveled to another state for the express purpose of FGM.

With any luck, the feds will go back and talk the states that don't already have anti-FGM laws in place into writing some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:57 AM

48. 26 states have outlawed it

 


Not a single person on this thread gives a shit whether it is legal or illegal in their state, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS THREAD WILL LIFT A FINGER TO CONTACT THEIR STATE LEGISLATOR TO ASK WHY IT ISN’T ILLEGAL IN THEIR STATE if that is the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jberryhill (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 04:06 AM

68. My question is more basic

Why do we need a specific law for FGM when the act itself should be classified as sexual abuse of a minor and felony assault?

I guess that goes back to this case in MI. Why are they going through a federal trial? Isnt sexual abuse and assault against state law in MI??

I mean if it makes a difference than by all means we should have a FGM law in every state but I’m just confused why it needs to be this specific.
Do we need a law that covers punching and another law to cover kicking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #68)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 09:24 AM

75. That's a "basic" question with a very complex answer

 


To try to summarize what would require a half-day research project to answer in detail for you, the answer is that criminal statutes tend to have specific and clear elements because we require a couple of things before we let the government lock people up. Among those things is that the statute clearly define the behavior in question.

For example, what would you think of this as a criminal law:

1. Being an asshole shall be punishable by at least one week and no more than two months imprisonment, or a fine of $500.

Personally, I think it would be great. As a law, though, it kind of hinges on what sorts of things might constitute "being an asshole".

So, yes, sexual abuse and assault are against state law in MI. Sure. But what you need to do is to look at the actual definitions of things like "sexual contact" or "sexual conduct" as they are used in those statutes. I'm willing to bet that nobody included something like "surgically excising an organ" in the relevant definition, since that's not what they had in mind when they wrote those statutes. Usually, those sorts of things include "touching genital organs for the purpose of sexual gratification and not a medical procedure" in them.

So if you want to ask "Why doesn't Michigan's sexual assault law apply" then a good first step would be to actually post which statute you had in mind, instead of saying "Hey, go look up the entirety of sexual crimes as defined in Michigan statutes and explain to me which, if any, apply or don't apply." Because that is the essence of what you are asking here as a "basic question".

Another effect here is that this article is about a ruling on six of the EIGHT federal criminal counts against the defendants. It is not an article about what, if any, state prosecution may have gone on, and it is not an article about the other two counts remaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 12:30 PM

89. Got you

I appreciate you taking the time to answer. The news article very poorly covered The who, what, where, when and why of the specifics of the case and court proceedings. It was more geared to stir up emotional responses.

My shortcoming was the poor assumption that surgically or otherwise mutilating a child was against the law in every state. Not meant to be snarky toward you at all just frustrating.
I did determine that here in WA there is no FGM legislation ( stunned to say the least), something I hope to be a positive force to change.

Thank you again for your insight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #68)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:45 AM

83. Here's a quick take on that

 


The subsidiary definition of "sexual contact" under the various Michigan sexual assault crimes is:

----------
(q) "Sexual contact" includes the intentional touching of the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner for:

(i) Revenge.

(ii) To inflict humiliation.

(iii) Out of anger.
-------------

The several offenses use that definition to make "sexual contact" under various circumstances (age, consent, position of authority, etc.) illegal.

Performing an operation on someone to damage their sexual organ is not touching "for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner" for any of those additional things.

They have, since this prosecution, filled that gap in Michigan, but you can't ask "Why isn't it illegal under some other law" without looking at what that law specifically says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 04:19 AM

69. I haven't read the opinion

yet, but how does the judge square this with Gonzales v. Carhart, the partial birth abortion ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Reply #69)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:15 AM

80. Gonzales was decided upon

 

The juriprudence that came from Roe. Basically the conservitive justices decided if Roe and the cases following Roe can ignore the commerce clause, so can they. Actually Thomas and Scalia did a separate opinion saying that it probably violated the commerce clause, but that argument was for a later date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:20 AM

55. FGM article

https://m.mic.com/articles/182161/24-states-have-no-laws-against-female-genital-mutilation-heres-why-that-needs-to-change#.2TouU8dPJ

About how week the Federal law is and tougher state laws are needed

Michigan passed a state law but too late as it came AFTER they found out about the monster mutilating children here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:26 AM

59. This is obviously a conservative judge who refuses to give any creedence to the

provide for the general welfare clause. Preventing the torture of young girls should fall into that category. Interestingly enough, they are in the same section in the constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 01:55 AM

64. So in the last 24 hours, torture, mutilation, and state sanctioned murder are apparently OK now.

This is so completely wrong and fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 03:01 AM

66. Interesting case!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 03:14 AM

67. If we want devout Muslim Americans to continue voting for the Democratic Party in the numbers that

they have been, there are some assuredly some aspects of their culture we may have to overlook.

FGM should not be one of them. It's not even a proper part of Islam, is it? It's more of a regional practice, is it not?

At any rate, there must be zero tolerance for this kind of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcmaine72 (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 04:42 AM

70. Good luck with that

Some people like to think muslims are above such criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ansible (Reply #70)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 09:14 AM

73. It's not a "Muslim" practice

 


It is no more "Muslim" than the Easter Bunny is a "Christian" practice.

The Easter Bunny bringing eggs is an echo of an ancient pagan spring fertility observance which has been kept going under a "Christian" guise by sticking the word "Easter" in front of it. Same thing for Christmas trees. Neither of those is "Christian" in any religious sense.

FGM is an ancient regional African practice that pre-dates Islam, and is ALSO performed by Christians in the same region.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #73)


Response to Post removed (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 07:15 PM

99. Is that sort of behavior limited to Muslims?

 


We should certainly not overlook people who do that sort of thing, regardless of the excuse they use. You have recited a list of things that humans do, and which is certainly not the monopoly of any one group of them.

Why overlook that sort of behavior from anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcmaine72 (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 09:15 AM

74. What about the Roman Catholics who do it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #74)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 10:02 AM

77. Did you miss this part of my post?

"At any rate, there must be zero tolerance for this kind of thing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:37 AM

82. Reasoning Seems Stupid

If this reasoning is followed how can Congress make rules. The Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws. How can someone say that Congress cannot make certain laws, or that because an act is not part of the Commerce Clause Congress cannot make laws concerning the activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #82)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:49 AM

85. "How can someone say that Congress cannot make certain laws"

 


The entire POINT of the Constitution is to limit government generally to specifically granted powers. The reason why there was even a debate over the Bill of Rights was that it was considered to be unnecessary to say "the government cannot do X" when the government wasn't given specific power to do it in the first place.

If you want a system where, in essence, the federal government can do anything, then we'd have a very different country here.

That the federal government is one of enumerated and limited powers is basic to the concept of what is the United States government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #85)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:18 PM

109. Do you ever feel like Sisyphus in some of these threads?

You roll your legal rock up the hill, then another post comes along containing a rant about this evil Republican judge who loves FGM and probably practices it in his basement, and the rock rolls right back down again...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #109)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 11:37 PM

121. Not even a legal rock, a civics rock.

I've said it before, there should be an online civics class people can take, and if they pass, they can take a $500 tax deduction.

Topics like:
- the enlightenment (as a general primer on the fundamental philosophy of our gov't)
- separation of powers / powers and limits of various branches of the government
- how laws are made
- the bill of rights as a limit on government power
- the civil war and the const. amendments passed
- the civil rights era and laws passed / cases brought
- important first amendment cases (aka, stop using the bad 'fire in a crowded theater' quote)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #82)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 03:39 PM

96. ....

🤦🏻‍♀️

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #82)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:15 PM

108. Have a look at the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #108)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 08:45 PM

111. The Constitution is a lot like the Bible

 

You can find a passage to support your position for almost anything. And your detractors can find a different one to oppose it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Reply #111)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 10:14 PM

115. There's a little more to it than that

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #82)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 09:42 AM

127. Federal power is limited by tenth amendment

States can outlaw this procedure. Indeed they already have. The ruling seems mundane to me. I think it will be upheld. The result will be trial in state court instead of federal court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2018, 06:30 PM

97. WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 02:21 PM

118. So it sounds like it is up to the states to make the laws

So check your state for it.

The federal government can only handle it where it crosses state lines, as with kidnapping and any other wrong.

It is only based on federalism, not on any approval or OK with FGM. Criminal laws are generally left to the states.

And I'm pretty sure it is illegal anyway, classifiable as assault, battery or mayhem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #118)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 11:43 PM

122. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 12:08 AM

123. Seems like a congressional overreach.

The commerce clause has been stretched past its' limits way too often.

Residents in the states without such a law need to work on getting one passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 07:30 AM

126. WTF



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 10:20 AM

129. FGM and a whole list of 'Federal Crimes'

https://clarifacts.com/resources/federal-crimes-list/

The federal crimes listed here were compiled from Title 18 and Title 26 of the United States Code, among others. While this federal crimes list is extensive, it is not to be considered a complete list. It is provided only as a helpful employment background screening resource.

Abusive Sexual Contact
Advocating Overthrow of Government
Aggravated Assault/Battery
Aggravated Identity Theft
Aggravated Sexual Abuse
Aiming a Laser Pointer at an Aircraft
Airplane Hijacking
Anti-racketeering
Antitrust
Armed Robbery
Arson
Assassination
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Assaulting or Killing Federal Officer
Assisting or Instigating Escape
Attempt to commit Murder/Manslaughter
Bank Burglary
Bankruptcy Fraud/Embezzlement
Bank Larceny
Bank Robbery
Blackmail
Bombing Matters
Bond Default
Breaking and/or Entering Carrier Facilities
Bribery Crimes
Certification of Checks (Fraud)
Child Abuse
Child Exploitation
Child Pornography
Civil Action to Restrain Harassment of a Victim or Witness
Coercion
Commodities Price Fixing
Computer Crime
Concealing Escaped Prisoner
Concealing Person from Arrest
Concealment of Assets
Conspiracy (in matters under FBI jurisdiction)
Conspiracy to Impede or Injure an Officer
Contempt of Court
Continuing Criminal Enterprise
Conveying False Information
Copyright Matters
Counterfeiting
Counterintelligence Crimes
Credit/Debit Card Fraud
Crime Aboard Aircraft
Crimes on Government Reservations
Crimes on Indian Reservations
Criminal Contempt of Court
Criminal Forfeiture
Criminal Infringement of a Copyright
Cyber Crimes
Damage to Religious Property
Delivery to Consignee
Demands Against the U.S.
Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicles Used in Foreign Commerce
Destruction of an Energy Facility
Destruction of Property to Prevent Seizure
Destruction of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy
Destruction of Corporate Audit Records
Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials
Detention of Armed Vessel
Disclosure of Confidential Information
Domestic Security
Domestic Terrorism
Domestic Violence
Drive-by Shooting
Drug Abuse Violations
Drug Smuggling
Drug Trafficking
DUI/DWI on Federal Property
Economic Espionage
Election Law Crimes
Embezzlement
Embezzlement Against Estate
Entering Train to Commit Crime
Enlistment to Serve Against the U.S.
Environmental Scheme Crimes
Escaping Custody/Escaped Federal Prisoners
Examiner Performing Other Services
Exportation of Drugs
Extortion
Failure to Appear on Felony Offense
Failure to Pay Legal Child Support Obligations
False Bail
False Pretenses
False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters
Falsely Claiming Citizenship
False Declarations before Grand Jury or Court
False Entries in Records of Interstate Carriers
False Information and Hoaxes
False Statement to Obtain Unemployment Compensation
Federal Aviation Act
Federal Civil Rights Violations (hate crimes, police misconduct)
Female Genital Mutilation
Financial Transactions with Foreign Government
First Degree Murder
Flight to Avoid Prosecution or Giving Testimony
Forced Labor
Forcible Rape
Forgery
Fraud Activity in Connection with Electronic Mail
Fraud Against the Government
Genocide
Hacking Crimes
Harboring Terrorists
Harming Animals Used in Law Enforcement
Hate Crime Acts
Homicide
Hostage Taking
Identity Theft
Illegal Possession of Firearms
Immigration Offenses
Impersonator Making Arrest or Search
Importation of Drugs
Influencing Juror by Writing
Injuring Officer
Insider Trading Crimes
Insurance Fraud
Interference with the Operation of a Satellite
International Parental Kidnapping
International Terrorism
Interstate Domestic Violence
Interstate Violation of Protection Order
Larceny
Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys
Mailing Threatening Communications
Major Fraud Against the U.S.
Manslaughter
Medical/Health Care Fraud
Missile Systems Designed to Destroy Aircraft
Misuse of Passport
Misuse of Visas, Permits, or Other Documents
Molestation
Money Laundering
Motor Vehicle Theft
Murder by a Federal Prisoner
Murder Committed During Drug-related Drive-by shooting
Murder Committed in Federal Government Facility
Narcotics Violations
Obstructing Examination of Financial Institution
Obstruction of Court Orders
Obstruction of Federal audit
Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Criminal Investigations
Officer Failing to Make Reports
Partial Birth Abortion
Penalties for Neglect or Refusal to Answer Subpoena
Peonage
Perjury
Picketing or Parading
Pirating
Possession by Restricted Persons
Possession of False Papers to Defraud the U.S.
Possession of Narcotics
Possession of Child Pornography
Private Correspondence with Foreign Government
Probation Violation
Product Tampering
Prohibition of Illegal Gambling Businesses
Prostitution
Protection of Foreign Officials
Public Corruption Crimes
Racketeering
Radiological Dispersal Devices
Ransom Money
Rape
Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion
Recording or Listening to Grand or Petit Juries While Deliberating
Reentry of an Alien Removed on National Security Grounds
Registration of Certain Organizations
Reproduction of Citizenship Papers
Resistance to Extradition Agent
Rescue of Seized Property
Retaliating Against a Federal Judge by False Claim or Slander of Title
Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant
Robbery
Robberies and Burglaries Involving Controlled Substances
Sabotage
Sale of Citizenship Papers
Sale of Stolen Vehicles
Searches Without Warrant
Second Degree Murder
Serial Murders
Sexual Abuse
Sexual Abuse of a Minor
Sexual Assault
Sexual Battery
Sexual Conduct with a Minor
Sexual Exploitation
Sex Trafficking
Shoplifting
Smuggling
Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence
Stalking (In Violation of Restraining Order)
Stolen Property; Buying, Receiving, or Possessing
Subornation of Perjury
Suits Against Government Officials
Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant
Tampering with Consumer Products
Tampering with Vessels
Theft of Trade Secrets
Torture
Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services
Transmission of Wagering Information (Gambling)
Transportation into State Prohibiting Sale
Transportation of Slaves from U.S.
Transportation of Stolen Vehicles
Transportation of Terrorists
Trespassing
Treason
Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents
Use of Fire or Explosives to Destroy Property
Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Vandalism
Video Voyeurism
Violation of Prohibitions Governing Atomic Weapons
Violence at International airports
Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity
Willful Wrecking of a Train Resulting in Death
Wire Fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Reply #129)

Mon Nov 26, 2018, 10:58 AM

130. That's extremely misleading

 

I'll take one example, just to demonstrate how misguided your post is here.

There is a federal "murder" statute - 18 U.S. Code § 1111

But, here's what it says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder


(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life


Now, do you notice that qualifier? "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

You can read the whole list, but these examples should flesh out the point. We're talking about places under direct federal control - national parks, federal facilities - or in international waters and US flagged vessels:

(1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line.
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
(4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
(8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States.
(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act—
(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.


Posting a list of sections from 18 USC like that and saying "There's a federal law against murder" is highly misleading. Yes, 18 USC is the federal criminal code. No, not all of the offenses listed there have significant territorial scope in the United States. Basically it is "places in the US which aren't necessarily under the control of any state, but are under the control of the federal government".

The federal FGM law could be similarly limited to the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US, and it wouldn't apply to what happened in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread