Drug prohibition vs abortion prohibition. A question for DU lawyers.

MindPilot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:14 AM
Original message

Drug prohibition vs abortion prohibition. A question for DU lawyers.

Say state "A" makes abortion illegal and state "B" makes marijuana legal. We already know that in the case of marijuana, federal law trumps state law. Would the same hold true for state A's abortion law?

The cynical part of me says that since Christians run the country, the interpretation of any law will always default in the direction that will cause the most pain and suffering. But what say ye with the sheepskin?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

havocmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:15 AM
Response to Original message

1. .

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OldLeftieLawyer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:15 AM
Response to Original message

2. I don't understand the question,

but, then, I don't have a sheepskin.

Only a sheep.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MindPilot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. I'll rephrase: Since abortion is still legal under federal law,

does that mean that SD's abortion prohibition really has no effect? Just as CA making medical pot legal really has no effect since pot is still illegal under federal law?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cali

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #4

7. Right. SD's abortion law will not go into effect.

Federal law trumps state law. Roe is constitutional law. Federal and state court will hold that SD's law is unconstitutional. It may or may not wend its way to the SC.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OldLeftieLawyer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. That SD bill

is designed for one thing, and one thing only - to begin a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

Odds are that someone's already in court getting an injunction against the SD bill, trying to prevent it from going into effect.

Then, someone will challenge its constitutionality, and that's how it will get to the Supreme Court.

I don't understand what the 'pot' part of your question is about, in relation to the SD bill.

But, that's all I can give you, so I hope this helps.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gollygee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:17 AM
Response to Original message

3. I think the difference would be

if it's ok for a state to make something illegal - to have more things be illegal than the whole country - but not ok for the state to choose to make something legal that isn't nation-wide.

But I'm not a lawyer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MindPilot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #3

5. That's kind of what I'm thinking--the default is to most restrictive n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dolomite

(689 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-07-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #3

6. Pretty much how gun laws work.

Fer example;

MA = many gun control laws.

NH = very few gun control laws

MA = very high gun crime rate

NH = very low gun crime rate

If these idiots really think that an "abortion ban" will result in fewer abortions - to put it plainly - they are fucking high.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 05:19 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.