HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Civil Liberties (Group) » Seriously: re- the legal ...

Fri Sep 3, 2021, 12:43 PM

Seriously: re- the legal issues re- the TX anti-abortion law

Last edited Sat Sep 4, 2021, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm hoping there are people here who know more than me who can help explore the actual legal issues.

If putting enforcement in the hands of private parties works to defeat constitutionally protected rights, why couldn't all other constitutional rights be nullified by the same mechanism? Could legislatures give private parties the power to sue gun sellers? Could former Confederate States pass laws prohibiting state officials from enforcing slavery but allowing private parties to do so?

On another point, what constitutes "state action" subject to constitutional restrictions: the action of the legislature in passing such a law? The action of a court in entertaining a suit by a private party based on the law? Aren't such restrictions relatively toothless if they only applies to arrests by or fines payable to state officials?

I realize the S. Ct. disclaimed any opinion re- constitutionality, but what if the law is unconstitutional on its face?

4 replies, 511 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 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Seriously: re- the legal issues re- the TX anti-abortion law (Original post)
snot Sep 3 OP
Kablooie Sep 3 #1
snot Sep 4 #4
brush Sep 3 #2
snot Sep 4 #3

Response to snot (Original post)

Fri Sep 3, 2021, 01:23 PM

1. The theory is that no clinic can afford to flaunt the law so ...

no cases will be brought up for the unconstitutional law to be shot down.

But there will be women who have underground or self abortions.
Sooner or later some greedy asshole will sue some poor woman who had to do this and then the law will be able to be reviewed.
Since the law flagrantly conflicts with Roe wouldn't they have to rule it unconstitutional then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 4, 2021, 03:14 PM

4. That is the only way the TX law could stand,

as far as I can see (though I'm no expert).

The S. Ct.'s action in this case is almost like a sort of ignominious heads-up to women of an intention – to overturn Roe – that they know to be shameful: women had better either stop having sex or plan to have babies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Original post)

Fri Sep 3, 2021, 01:25 PM

2. Could it be this sneaky enforcement method is a skirting of...

the Constitution and could, if extrapolated out by extremist, very well be an opening of a legal Pandora's box—i.e. your mention of gun and enslavement issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 4, 2021, 03:03 PM

3. Exactly

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread