Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[The Great Zaganza]

Wasn't there a recent SC ruling that pushed back on the notion that reservations weren't constricted by state law? I dimly recall reading something in the last couple of months.

yeah, Gorsuch freaked out over it.
Reservations probably don't want to test that law until there is a more lawful SC composition.

 

[slyjoe]

Wasn't there a recent SC ruling that pushed back on the notion that reservations weren't constricted by state law? I dimly recall reading something in the last couple of months.

yeah, Gorsuch freaked out over it.
Reservations probably don't want to test that law until there is a more lawful SC composition.

I thought it was the other way around. Gorsuch actually complained that the SC ruling was another government violation of Indian treaties.

The case let the state enforce state laws on Indian lands, IIRC.

ETA: Maybe I misread the first post.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wasn't there a recent SC ruling that pushed back on the notion that reservations weren't constricted by state law? I dimly recall reading something in the last couple of months.

Reservations aren't completely immune to state laws, but the authority of state laws over reservations is still pretty restricted.

which brings up an interesting question: suppose States criminalize citizens getting an abortion outside their State

They cannot do that. States cannot criminalize anything which happens outside their borders (or, in the case of Indian reservations, outside their jurisdiction), even for their own citizens. There is no ambiguity in the constitution, federal law, or case law on this point. Nobody is trying to change that. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box.

 

[lionking]

They cannot do that. States cannot criminalize anything which happens outside their borders (or, in the case of Indian reservations, outside their jurisdiction), even for their own citizens. There is no ambiguity in the constitution, federal law, or case law on this point. Nobody is trying to change that. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box.

But can’t someone be charged with offences committed in another state on their return to their home state?

 

[Upchurch]

They cannot do that.

If the Trump years taught us anything, you only cannot do something if someone actually stops you.

States cannot criminalize anything which happens outside their borders (or, in the case of Indian reservations, outside their jurisdiction), even for their own citizens. There is no ambiguity in the constitution, federal law, or case law on this point. Nobody is trying to change that. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box.

There are states that are attempting to criminalize traveling to a different state to do things that are illegal in their own state. The only group that can ultimately stop them is a ideology compromised SCOTUS. In other words, no one.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

But can’t someone be charged with offences committed in another state on their return to their home state?

They can be extradited to that other state to be charged with crimes in that state. But you can't be prosecuted in California for something you did in Nevada.

 

[Upchurch]

There are states that are attempting to criminalize traveling to a different state to do things that are illegal in their own state. The only group that can ultimately stop them is a ideology compromised SCOTUS. In other words, no one.

Now that I think about it, it is targeting people who are helping pregnant people go across state lines to do something that is illegal in the home state.

 

[lionking]

They can be extradited to that other state to be charged with crimes in that state. But you can't be prosecuted in California for something you did in Nevada.

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

no, it's not, because it's an infringement both in Nevada and California.

What we are talking about is California going after you for exceeding the lower California speed limit on a Nevada highway with higher speed limit.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

The ticket would still be from a court in Nevada. California doesn't care about it one way or the other.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

No, a ticket in Nevada is not a ticket in CA. One state does not ticket for infringements in another state.

 

[Ziggurat]

But can’t someone be charged with offences committed in another state on their return to their home state?

No, they cannot. States have no jurisdiction over what happens in another state. No state has the authority to criminalize any action that takes place outside its borders. There is no ambiguity on this point, and it is not peculiar to abortion. And it won't change for the sake of abortion precisely because it's so fundamental to everything about the federal structure of our government. Nobody wants to do that. Nobody is even talking about doing that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

no, it's not, because it's an infringement both in Nevada and California.

That doesn't matter. California law has no bearing on what you do in Nevada. Only Nevada law (or federal law if applicable) matters.

The ticket would still be from a court in Nevada. California doesn't care about it one way or the other.

This is correct. Nevada can mail the ticket to your California address, but Nevada still only has jurisdiction for what you do while in Nevada. Moving out of Nevada does not immunize you against what you did in Nevada that violated Nevada law, but the ticket comes from Nevada. California does not in general care, and if you never plan to return to Nevada you may be able to ignore it. For more serious matters, Nevada could ask California to extradite you, but it's still Nevada law being enforced by the Nevada government for offenses you committed within Nevada. California can't charge you for violations of California law committed in Nevada, and Nevada cannot charge you for violations of Nevada law committed in California.

 

[shemp]

which brings up an interesting question: suppose States criminalize citizens getting an abortion outside their State - if that happens on a Reservation, would such a law work?
Note: Some Indian Tribes have made it clear that they don't intend to host abortion clinics, probably because they already suffer a lot of hate and violence.

With five ******** on the Supreme Court who think they run this country, all bets are off.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, they cannot. States have no jurisdiction over what happens in another state. No state has the authority to criminalize any action that takes place outside its borders. There is no ambiguity on this point, and it is not peculiar to abortion. And it won't change for the sake of abortion precisely because it's so fundamental to everything about the federal structure of our government. Nobody wants to do that. Nobody is even talking about doing that.

Missouri is talking about it:

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion

First-of-its-kind Missouri legislation shows that anti-abortion lawmakers in Republican-led states aren’t likely to stop at banning most abortions within their borders but also could try to make it harder to go out of state to end pregnancies.

A proposal that could be debated in the Legislature as soon as next week seeks to make it illegal to “aid or abet” abortions outlawed in Missouri, even if they are performed in other states.

State Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s bill is aimed at a key frustration for abortion foes: people crossing state lines to avoid restrictions. The bill also targets a network of 90-plus groups across the U.S. that have sprung up specifically to preserve access to abortion.

Under Coleman’s measure, anything from driving women across state lines for abortions to internet providers allowing access to certain abortion-related websites would be outlawed. She said St. Louis-area billboards advertising easier-to-get abortions in neighboring Illinois would be banned, too.

“It’s trying to evade the laws of the state of Missouri,” said Coleman, a St. Louis-area Republican.

While some legal experts doubt that Coleman’s proposal is constitutional, they also worry that the Supreme Court might refuse to intervene to stop it — just as it did with the Texas law.

“It’s unclear to these states what they’re going to be able to do, and so I think they’re sort of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks,” said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...w-to-make-illegal-to-aid-or-abet-out-of-state

 

[bruto]

Reservations aren't completely immune to state laws, but the authority of state laws over reservations is still pretty restricted.



They cannot do that. States cannot criminalize anything which happens outside their borders (or, in the case of Indian reservations, outside their jurisdiction), even for their own citizens. There is no ambiguity in the constitution, federal law, or case law on this point. Nobody is trying to change that. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box.

Are you quite sure of this? I know this is how it ought to be, and how it has traditionally been presumed to be. But there are people, right now, in positions of political authority who do want to criminalize abortion outside their own state's borders. Whether they can actually get away with it is another matter. YOU may not want to open that box, and you may be right that it will not be opened, but there are people just stupid and bigoted enough to be prying at it as we speak.

And is the Constitution unambiguous about this? What I read there (apart from the issue of fugitive slaves) is this:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from
Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the
State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction
of the Crime.

It does not limit what a state can declare a crime, nor does it require the crime to be a felony, nor does it demand conviction or even a good case. Only a charge. If a State declares that seeking an abortion in another state is a crime, then a person who does so can be charged with a crime, and according to the Constitution can be extradited. Now of course you can say that this is ridiculous and unAmerican and this and that, but if you are a strict constructionist and originalist in your reading of the Constitution, there's room for some nasty stuff to bubble up. If you declare that seeking an abortion out of state is a crime, even a misdemeanor, you can charge that crime even if, by some other means, it is not legal to charge for actually getting it. Case law and custom and common understanding notwithstanding, there is no Constitutional guarantee of free travel between states.

Of course that will never happen. Ha Ha. Nobody is that stupid. Ha ha.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's mostly men who want to gamble and get a hooker, so that will always be legal, no matter who much they have to twist their logic.

Fixed.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

They cannot do that. States cannot criminalize anything which happens outside their borders (or, in the case of Indian reservations, outside their jurisdiction), even for their own citizens. There is no ambiguity in the constitution, federal law, or case law on this point. Nobody is trying to change that. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box.

The sentences I highlighted are quite false. The spoiler below contains a sampling of relevant facts from members who are more well-informed on this subject.

There are states that are attempting to criminalize traveling to a different state to do things that are illegal in their own state. The only group that can ultimately stop them is a ideology compromised SCOTUS. In other words, no one.

Missouri is talking about it:

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...w-to-make-illegal-to-aid-or-abet-out-of-state

Are you quite sure of this? I know this is how it ought to be, and how it has traditionally been presumed to be. But there are people, right now, in positions of political authority who do want to criminalize abortion outside their own state's borders. Whether they can actually get away with it is another matter. YOU may not want to open that box, and you may be right that it will not be opened, but there are people just stupid and bigoted enough to be prying at it as we speak.

And is the Constitution unambiguous about this?

...snip...

It does not limit what a state can declare a crime, nor does it require the crime to be a felony, nor does it demand conviction or even a good case. Only a charge. If a State declares that seeking an abortion in another state is a crime, then a person who does so can be charged with a crime, and according to the Constitution can be extradited. Now of course you can say that this is ridiculous and unAmerican and this and that, but if you are a strict constructionist and originalist in your reading of the Constitution, there's room for some nasty stuff to bubble up. If you declare that seeking an abortion out of state is a crime, even a misdemeanor, you can charge that crime even if, by some other means, it is not legal to charge for actually getting it. Case law and custom and common understanding notwithstanding, there is no Constitutional guarantee of free travel between states.

Of course that will never happen. Ha Ha. Nobody is that stupid. Ha ha.

 

[Bob001]

The sentences I highlighted are quite false. The spoiler below contains a sampling of relevant facts from members who are more well-informed on this subject.
......

Maybe the scariest sentence in the above link:

While some legal experts doubt that Coleman’s proposal is constitutional, they also worry that the Supreme Court might refuse to intervene to stop it — just as it did with the Texas law.

We can say all we want about what's supposed to be unconstitutional. But if the SC closes its eyes, there's no recourse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you quite sure of this?

Yes. I am quite sure. Article 4, section 1 means one state’s laws cannot overrule anothers. Section 2 means every citizen of any state has the rights of every state. Combined, they mean that one state cannot invade the jurisdiction of another state even for their own citizens and criminalize in another state what that state allows.

There is no ambiguity about this. It will not change. And a few idiots who don’t understand that won’t change it.

Extradition is a separate matter, and so is federal law, so the fugitive slave act has no bearing on this argument.