If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Federal Judge tells North Dakota that since its initals are ND and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their patients   (rawstory.com) divider line 23
    More: Obvious, FDA, North Dakota, federal judges, abortions, Center for Reproductive Rights, patients, physicians  
•       •       •

4261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 2:48 PM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-19 02:18:44 PM
5 votes:
Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve
2013-04-19 03:15:57 PM
4 votes:

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


He's gonna need more dolls.
2013-04-19 02:55:57 PM
4 votes:
South Dakota and Best Dakota
2013-04-19 02:49:55 PM
4 votes:

timujin: FTFA: Judge permanently blocks North Dakota ban on medication for abortions.

South Dakota, subby?


Yeah sorry, I can't tell one Dakota from t'other without seeing them naked...South has this birthmark on her thigh shaped like Cthulhu
2013-04-19 02:21:00 PM
3 votes:

lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're

there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve


Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?
2013-04-19 04:52:27 PM
2 votes:

Rabbitgod: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there tharpatients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

We are going to collect their tharluggage.
We are going to take it over there thar.
They're Tharalmost here.
They're Thar

 going to collect their tharluggage over there thar.

Fixed that for you, thar's always corect.
2013-04-19 03:13:15 PM
2 votes:
the state's sole women's clinic that offers abortion services, the Red River Women's Clinic

That's got to be a joke.
2013-04-20 09:21:43 AM
1 votes:
Forgot one thing.

Using your example, this is how 10thers read the 10th Amendment:

~List of things you are allowed to eat~
Tortilla chips
Leftover pizza
Diet Cokes
cookies and cream ice cream in the freezer

Anything not listed on the above approved foods list is reserved for our family.

When our resident 10ther gets home, he finds the babysitter has eaten some tortilla chips, and had a Diet Coke. So he gets on her case, saying "I told you NOT to drink any Diet Coke!!!!"

The babysitter gives him a quizzical look. "But your list said Diet Cokes are approved. See, it says it right there."

With an irritated sigh, our resident 10ther says "Did you even READ the last line?. Here, let me spell it out for you, idiot: "anything not on the above approved foods list is RESERVED FOR OUR FAMILY."
2013-04-20 09:11:07 AM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: Thus when you come home and find she ate your Omaha Steaks, drank all the milk and gorged herself on your wife's expensive organic strawberries, what a reasonable person thinks is: "That biatch, she ate a bunch of stuff not on the list." What a Tenther thinks is: "That biatch, she violated the last line saying that anything not on the list is not approved"


I agree in principle with what you're saying, though I would phrase it just a little differently. Using your analogy, what the 10th Amendment really states is "anything not on this list is reserved for our family to eat." 10thers read that to erect some *independent bar* to what the babysitter may eat, effectively limiting the list of what is expressly listed as permissible to eat. In short, they read it like some of the other amendments, restricting the scope of what would otherwise be within Congress's power.

Let me put it this way. At the broadest level, any constitutional analysis of Congressional action proceeds in two steps.

1) Does any enumerated (or implied) power authorize this law? If not, then your analysis is done. The law is unconstitutional. If yes, then proceed to step 2.

2) Does any other provision prohibit this law, which otherwise falls within the scope of an enumerated power? If not, then the law is constitutional. If so, the law is unconstitutional.

Applying this to a hypothetical examples: House Republicans draft and pass a law banning interstate transmission of electronic messages advocating in favor of gun safety laws. After threatening to filibuster and veto, Democrats roll over and pass the damn thing when the NRA goes on Fox and says scary things about the election.

1) Does a law banning interstate transmission of electronic message advocating in favor of gun safety laws fall within the scope of an enumerated power? Yes. It clearly falls within the scope of the commerce power, because Congress has the power to regulate the movement of things across state borders. Numerous cases have at least implicitly held that applies to electronic signals.

2) Does any other provision prohibit this law? Yes. This law clearly violates the 1st Amendment, which holds political expression of the sort governed by this law has its highest value.

Now, with all this in mind--is the 10th Amendment like or unlike the 1st Amendment in erecting an independent bar to federal power? That is, in our two step analysis, once we've established that a law falls within the scope of an enumerated power, does the 10th Amendment, like the 1st Amendment, say "no, you can't do that even though you otherwise could?" Or does it just say, "after you've completed step 1, if your answer to step 1 is 'no,' then states have the power to enact this law."

Linguistically, the answer is obvious. It says, in essence, "if we didn't say Congress can do this, then states can." Read it if you don't believe me. That's what it says. But that's not how conservatives read it. They imagine in the 10th Amendment an independent bar to federal action, like unto the 1st Amendment. In their minds, a 10th Amendment analysis proceeds like the analysis I just applied to interstate transmission of pro gun safety messages.

But a proper 10th Amendment analysis applied to say, a federal law authorizing expenditures from the federal treasury to support state education efforts, but with conditions attached aimed at promoting federal prerogatives, proceeds like this:

1) Does a federal law spending to promote education fall within the scope of an enumerated power? Yes. Congress has the power to tax and to spend to promote the general welfare of the United States. While what constitutes "the general welfare" isn't completely without limits, Congress nonetheless has broad discretion in determining its meaning, and surely it could rationally believe spending money to promote education is in the country's best interests.

2) Does any other provision prohibit this law? No. All the 10th Amendment says is "if we didn't say Congress can do it, then states can." But we said Congress can do this, so the 10th Amendment is moot. The real question is "having established that Congress may permissibly regulate in this domain, may states also regulate here?" Certainly the 10th Amendment doesn't say they can. The answer is yes, but that goes into the whole issue of supremacy, overlapping powers, pre-emption, etc., which is well beyond the scope of this post.

So 10thers are wrong. Supreme Court opinions holding that the 10th Amendment forbids laws otherwise within the scope of enumerated powers are linguistically wrong, and ideologically driven. Basically, people who hold that view of the 10th Amendment are still pissed that the south lost the civil war, and they're trying to re-litigate it through the 10th Amendment.

10thers: you are bad, dishonest people, enemies of our Constitution, and enemies of the republic. Go f*ck yourselves.
2013-04-20 01:35:51 AM
1 votes:

timujin: timujin: FTFA: Judge permanently blocks North Dakota ban on medication for abortions.

South Dakota, subby?

aww, they changed the headline, now who looks like a dummy?


The person who typed "perscription."
2013-04-19 11:38:04 PM
1 votes:

sheep snorter: South Dakota and Best Dakota


Coincidentally, Best Dakota is the only one with nuclear weapons these days.
2013-04-19 05:42:10 PM
1 votes:

Nadie_AZ: God damn. Most of our states wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Federal Government. The Dakotas would still be indian territory if it weren't for the Federal Government and its troops. I don't understand why these idiots don't get this.


Typically proponents of a strong federal government don't cite successfully carried out genocides as evidence, but I do appreciate the forthrightness.
2013-04-19 05:42:08 PM
1 votes:
I think people like hasty ambush don't jerk off to porn, but instead fantasize about their favorite passages from the constitution.

"ohhh 10th amendment, ohh yeah yeah, states rights, give me freedom mr Jefferson, ohhh yeah state government, authoritarianism at the staaaaatteeee levellllllll ohhhhhhhbhb"
2013-04-19 04:58:20 PM
1 votes:

namatad: fark states' rights


It seems that this guy got one of the final words regarding "states rights"
www.sonofthesouth.net
2013-04-19 04:13:53 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


In the god-hole.
2013-04-19 03:34:30 PM
1 votes:
Thank god the patriotic Republicans are fighting Obamacare to keep big government from getting between doctors and their patients!
2013-04-19 03:29:12 PM
1 votes:
I wonder if families in South Africa will be watching the Capetown equivalent of Sally Struthers talk about the poor starving children of America in 2054, complete with flies swarming around their little blue eyes.

Republicanstan - it's more depressing than you might think.
2013-04-19 03:13:17 PM
1 votes:

namatad: Magorn: You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states

WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.


It is taught in schools, or at least it was. It just gets buried under years of area men defending what they imagine the constitution to be.
2013-04-19 03:04:23 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


Right under you nose. It's how you forget the secrets of the universe (like the power of god's eternal love) right before you're born.
2013-04-19 02:59:53 PM
1 votes:

xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.


where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us
2013-04-19 02:54:30 PM
1 votes:
Rocky didn't like that and said, "I'm gonna get that boy."
2013-04-19 02:22:39 PM
1 votes:

CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its it's initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?


Found another one, crazy how many mistakes got through on this headline.
2013-04-19 02:13:59 PM
1 votes:
MOAR LIKE SD'S NUTZ, AMIRITE?
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report