Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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 isnt 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.
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 isnt 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
131 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional [View all]
Calista241
Nov 2018
OP
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman...hope his career nosedives with this ruling
Merlot
Nov 2018
#2
Of course it isn't. But there are legal remedies that work and ones that don't.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#112
That's probably a good idea. Crazy people should not be allowed to carry weapons.
lagomorph777
Nov 2018
#76
Well it is evident that he doesn't have any testicals making the operation quick easy.
olegramps
Nov 2018
#79
On the law, specifically the application of the Commerce Clause, the judge was correct.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#102
Yes they do ...and people will learn they HAVE to vote or they will have more of this
Fullduplexxx
Nov 2018
#72
That is why WE NEED A VIABLE CANDIDATE - Beto for 2020 - PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION .. ..
iDOcareDoyou
Nov 2018
#84
This is against the girls' will. It is assault & battery with bodily injury.
CaptainTruth
Nov 2018
#10
Congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws against human mutilation?
sinkingfeeling
Nov 2018
#11
The absence of a federal law doesn't mean something is legal under state law
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#22
It does, but only if the statute specifies that the specific crime being prosecuted has a nexus with
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#104
It is just another example of the how states rights lead to a hodgepodge of ridiculous laws.
olegramps
Nov 2018
#81
So, the recreational lobster catch limit should be the same in Florida, Maine and Nebraska?
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#87
Well, surely the laws concerning snow removal are the same in Florida and Maine
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#93
This decision MUST be appealed. These savages must not be allowed to continue this barbarism.
7962
Nov 2018
#14
The law is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#106
Reading his bio and articles from his 'admirers' he seems to be a Libertarian extremist
rpannier
Nov 2018
#19
So if a religion believed in removing a lung or a kidney in children, would that be okay?
lostnfound
Nov 2018
#17
Here's what is frustrating about press accounts and general legal ignorance here
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#41
Thanks. I've found a site that lists legislation by state and I'll post it.. n/t
pnwmom
Nov 2018
#63
"but rather engaged in a benign religious ritual..." But tell us again about what it isn't about.
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#35
You understand the line came from verbal arguments, right? Made in court? During proceedings?
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#45
I think I see what's going on here. I'm not on the judge, though I think it's the wrong decision...
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#57
No one has ever overturned a state anti-FGM law on religious freedom grounds.
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#58
Ok, but again, not part of any of my argument. You said religion wasn't part of this...
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#61
A mohel can be either a doctor, a rabbi or a cantor. It's whoever has the training. I was imprecise.
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#116
I think this will be overturned unless the defendants can prove they mutilate boys in the same way.
underthematrix
Nov 2018
#27
This is obviously a conservative judge who refuses to give any creedence to the
RDANGELO
Nov 2018
#59
So in the last 24 hours, torture, mutilation, and state sanctioned murder are apparently OK now.
Initech
Nov 2018
#64