The bill contains many provisions legal experts say are likely unconstitutional, including one that says it can’t be challenged in state court.
The bill contains many provisions legal experts say are likely unconstitutional, including one that says it can’t be challenged in state court.
This is starts rights, unless I’m misunderstanding.
It’s only state rights in the senses that it’s eroding them.
. . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?
Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.
Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”
Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.
It’s trying to prevent state judges from challenging that law.
Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put “can’t challenge this in court” into a law.
I think state rights should mean that a state has the ability the challenge the laws that govern it. This bill specifically has wording to prevent that, it’s the entire reason this article was posted. Please explain to me how stripping a states population of its rights to challenge a bill that governs them is suppose to be for their rights?
That is not what it means. The states can do that, however, in the courts, and in the Congress.
It’s not. But that’s not what states rights means. You’re talking about individuals rights. The language in the bill (tries to) prevent an individual from challenging the laws uber which he (or mostly she in this case) is governed. That’s nothing to do with the rights of the state itself.
When the constitution was written, the state governments viewed themselves as very nearly separate entities that were huddling together against the cold, not as a family, or as a unified nation with lesser administrative units. They wanted to be sure that the federal government couldn’t force, for example, Georgia to do things the state government didn’t want to do, except in a few specific points. They wrote the constitution with that in mind, that the States should have rights against the federal government.
You’re arguing the wrong thing. This is a shining example of “states rights” at work.
Please note that it is, like most of the things that cause people to get worked up about stats rights, not what you would call a good thing.
So you’re just going to completely misread an article and make an ass of yourself and not even own up to it?
if i can be shown to have done so, I will. So far all I see is you misusing the phrase “states rights.”
How is taking the right to fight it in state court away pro state rights?
I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.
“States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.
The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.
“States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.
Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.
They want to make it illegal to take a minor across state lines for a legal procedure, for one thing.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-bill-targets-aiding-minors-in-out-of-state-abortions-without-parental-consent
I think it’s already illegal to take minors across state lines without parental consent.
Only in very specific cases:
For parents of a child, it is only a crime for these cases:
In general, though, you don’t need explicit permission to take your child out of state.
For non-parents, it is only illegal if done for the following purposes:
Attempt and Conspiracy (to those acts above);
It’s weird that noncustodial parents are more restricted on taking kids out of state than random non-parental people.
Presumably it’s because non-custodial parents are more likely to abduct their children than a random stranger is
Huh. TIL. I had always thought that I could get in the deep shit for that.