Conservative Hardliner News

Conservative Hardliner News

Author Topic: Federal judge- Female child mutilation is 'OK' in USA.  (Read 1211 times)

Offline Belenus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Gender: Male
  • TRUTH: Truth is all there is.
Federal judge- Female child mutilation is 'OK' in USA.
« on: November 21, 2018, 05:33:42 AM »
Ok, so some savages dream up a "religion" that requires their members to rape & kill 'others'.. that also should be permitted because those rapes and murders are "religious"?

Is mutilation so removed from other ghastly forms of violence?

What the hell was this *judge* thinking?
"It's hard to predict... especially the future."

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 70890
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal judge- Female child mutilation is 'OK' in USA.
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2018, 06:18:04 AM »
Fuckin mind boggling!
If anything, the judge should not have heard the case based on the fact, as he states, "Has no business" adjudicating via the Commerce Clause, so the case should have simply been thrown out and tried under another law, the Constitution itself.
And to think, Reagan appointed this Progressive, the same judge that ruled on Michigan's gay marriage ban that SCOTUS upheld.

The Necessary and Proper Clause does permit Congress to pass legislation to enforce treaty obligations, but there must be a rational relationship between the two. In the present case, there is no such relationship between the ICCPR and the FGM statute. Article 3 calls for "the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant," while Article 24 calls for protection of children without discrimination based on "race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth." Neither article is rationally related to the FGM statute, which prohibits the mutilation of girls' genitalia.

Even if it could be argued that the statute rationally seeks to implement a provision of the ICCPR, Congress may not enact such a statute because, as the Supreme Court has stated, the federal government has no "plenary police power," Lopez, 514 U.S. at 566, and "the clearest example of traditional state authority is the punishment of local criminal activity." Bond, 572 U.S. at 858. Federalism concerns demand that this division of authority between the federal and state governments be respected. No treaty—and no statute enacted to implement a treaty—may upset this balance.

Nor was enactment of the FGM statute a permissible exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercial or economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met.

There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce. The present case cannot be distinguished from Lopez or Morrison. As in those cases, FGM is a crime that could be prosecuted under state law. FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.

As the Supreme Court has stated, "[a] criminal act committed wholly within a State 'cannot be made an offence against the United States, unless it have some relation to the execution of a power of Congress, or to some matter within the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Bond, 572 U.S. at 854. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Congress had no authority to enact 18 U.S.C. § 116(a) under either grant of power on which the government relies. Therefore, that statute is unconstitutional.
Official Trump Cult Member



Powered by EzPortal