-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional
- Thread starter Fig
- Start date
My understanding on what I read is that the judge basically states the Feds dont have standing. The Fed law is based on commerce clause and has something to do with bringing the child across state lines for the procedure.
His understanding of law is that this is by face value a heinous crime that is the purview of state criminal law. He finds the Federal statute which carries a 5 year imprisonment Unconstitutional stretching of the Commerce Clause. How would he rule on other cases where a part of the Constitution is "stretched" to suit an agenda.
Michigan now has a law that was passed after this case made headlines. It carries a 15 year penalty. I hope these monsters never do this again but if they do Id rather see them do 15 years in Michigan than 5 years in a Fed pen country club with time off fir praying 5 times a day.
The prosecution fucked up (shocker). They prosecuted under fed law and Im assuming it was the first time the law was used. It was found unconstitutional. Perhaps the state prosecutors should have charged the parents for child abuse. Unsure what they could charge the Drs with because we are not familiar with barbarians in our midst - can they be charged with child abuse? Should be charged in state for maiming and lose their licenses to practice.
Hippocratic Oath is about first and foremost "Do no Harm", not "Do no Harm unless your 7th century religion wills it".
Last edited:
If the lefties paid for this it may open up a can of worms.
Going forward instead of saying everything is covered under the commerce clause maybe only those things defined as "commerce" can be regulated by the clause.
So putting restrictions on guns would not be in the purview of the commerce clause federally, it becomes a States Rights issue.
You want Pelosi determining what happens in your state or your own theiving, lying legislators?
You fuktards, that is a picture of Shia LeBouf, not me !.......
Here, let me fix it for you. The real me;
I think I do the "Phoenix Eye" pretty well, huh ? I even picked out the drapes.
Last edited:
well than they just screwed their Islamophile communist fellow travellers here as this case promotes States Rights and limits Federal overreach.
You fuktards, that is a picture of Shia LeBouf, not me !.......
Here, let me fix it for you. The real me;
View attachment 6973959
Where is your flag? 4 Chan will find you.
Are machine guns regulated by the Commerce clause?
With this ruling what would stop an individual state from saying "We are going to manufacture and sell to residents for use in state"?
Is banning a certain type of weapon a commerce issue if it doesnt cross state lines?
Why a Federal tax if its an internal state transaction.
Just asking? Havent studied enough on NFA/1986 ban.
With this ruling what would stop an individual state from saying "We are going to manufacture and sell to residents for use in state"?
Is banning a certain type of weapon a commerce issue if it doesnt cross state lines?
Why a Federal tax if its an internal state transaction.
Just asking? Havent studied enough on NFA/1986 ban.
Likely it will because "settled law" is a term that only applies to things that promote the communists agenda.
You fuktards, that is a picture of Shia LeBouf, not me !.......
Here, let me fix it for you. The real me;
View attachment 6973959
I even picked out the drapes.
smoooooth operator
You are being fed this decision under the guise of "Can you believe what this judge did!" because the media does not want anyone to realize the implications of what this ruling means.
I may be over reading it but gut tells me this ruling is a weapon for freedom in the long run by reigning in fed power.
I may be over reading it but gut tells me this ruling is a weapon for freedom in the long run by reigning in fed power.
You fuktards, that is a picture of Shia LeBouf, not me !.......
Here, let me fix it for you. The real me;
View attachment 6973959
I think I do the "Phoenix Eye" pretty well, huh ? I even picked out the drapes.
Kind of looks like a practitioner of MAM.........
Male Anal Mutilation.
I think you are really onto something. But, like with many other things, it depends on who is wielding this sword, how they choose to do so and what their underlying agenda is.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
You fuktards, that is a picture of Shia LeBouf, not me !.......
Here, let me fix it for you. The real me;
View attachment 6973959
I think I do the "Phoenix Eye" pretty well, huh ? I even picked out the drapes.
That guy has never operated a lathe in his life.
Problem is he is only one judge, one voice in the wilderness.
Hope he doesnt hunt in Texas.
You fuktards, that is a picture of Shia LeBouf, not me !.......
Here, let me fix it for you. The real me;
View attachment 6973959
I think I do the "Phoenix Eye" pretty well, huh ? I even picked out the drapes.
That's not a beard. Hell, that isn't even a biology experiment.
Au contraire, Im certain he has turned wood.
Going forward all you will hear the media say is "Laws against FGM are Unconstitutional. A Reagan judge said so" and they will work to repeal individual state laws by dumbing down the people.
Fuck in this last election some state sent a chick to congress that advocated for FGM.
Dont get suckered.
same with that kentucky Gay marriage ruing.... but abridging the constitution only applies to the statists.
In my state the AG banned bump stocks and made possession a felony even if you bought it prior to her law. Turn in was required. Couldn't even sell it. Stats show there were only three of them bought in the state because everyone that had one obviously turned theirs in and only three were turned in.
How is her action not "ex post facto" enforcement of a law?
Now this judge upheld that Michigan can not charge theses Dr Mengeles under their genital mutilation law because the law was adopted after the crime.
Could someone from MA that might have a bump stock use this as precedent for defense.
How is her action not "ex post facto" enforcement of a law?
Now this judge upheld that Michigan can not charge theses Dr Mengeles under their genital mutilation law because the law was adopted after the crime.
Could someone from MA that might have a bump stock use this as precedent for defense.
well, the penalty comes when they come to collect them. who will be doing the collecting will be getting the penalty.
Attached is the opinion Judge Friedman wrote. I've highlighted some pertinent portions of his opinion.
While most of his opinion might sound rational based on the boundaries placed on Congress under the interstate commerce clause, there was nothing preventing him from issuing a ruling, sua sponte, under the 14th Amendment to protect the rights of the children.
The statute does not prohibit FGM for anyone over the age of 18 who wishes to have the procedure performed on them. Unlike male circumcision, FGM has life-long consequences and is extremely cruel. The Judge could have ruled in favor of the government, not because or the interstate commerce clause but because the children's civil rights were violated. They can wait till they turn 18 to decide if they want to be subjected to FGM.
When you read this opinion, note the implications (for and against) congressional power to regulate class III NFA items. If I recall correctly, legal experts testifying before congress prior to enactment of the NFA of 1934 stated that banning those items was a violation of the 2nd Amendment but taxing them wasn't.
Could this ruling, if upheld byt the SCOTUS, open the door to overturn the machine gun ban for private citizens as enacted in the 1986 FOPA?
While most of his opinion might sound rational based on the boundaries placed on Congress under the interstate commerce clause, there was nothing preventing him from issuing a ruling, sua sponte, under the 14th Amendment to protect the rights of the children.
The statute does not prohibit FGM for anyone over the age of 18 who wishes to have the procedure performed on them. Unlike male circumcision, FGM has life-long consequences and is extremely cruel. The Judge could have ruled in favor of the government, not because or the interstate commerce clause but because the children's civil rights were violated. They can wait till they turn 18 to decide if they want to be subjected to FGM.
When you read this opinion, note the implications (for and against) congressional power to regulate class III NFA items. If I recall correctly, legal experts testifying before congress prior to enactment of the NFA of 1934 stated that banning those items was a violation of the 2nd Amendment but taxing them wasn't.
Could this ruling, if upheld byt the SCOTUS, open the door to overturn the machine gun ban for private citizens as enacted in the 1986 FOPA?
If he doesn't rule based on another Amendment I salute him because he ruled on the case the Prosecutors presented.
Roberts had no right to make up a loophole for Obamacare to slide through. He should of ruled on the case as it was presented to the people.
Last edited:
He is a good judge that abhors FGM.
I'm thinking the result of his decision was hard for him but he was not intellectually lazy. He made a tough call.
Mark this date an example of courage from a government official. Kind of like Adams had issues with ensuring acquittal of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacr but based on the law it was the right thing to do.
He is saying FGM is akin to murder and it's recognized congress has no purview over such crimes under the commerce clause.
The states have their own regulations for extradition and a state trial in the jurisdiction of record when a murder involves activities across state lines.
Last edited:
It’s called Cognitive Dissonance. The left has a fatal case of it. As well as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
pmclaine, I agree with everything that you are saying except that the Judge could have made a ruling based on the right of the people to be secure in their persons based on the 4th amendment even though the state did not bring that argument up.
The state also screwed up when they said that they were not relying on the 14th amendment application of the law.
If an unruly toddler is given a swat on the bottom at the grocery store watch the state step in to prosecute the mother and the judges will agree. Maim a little girl for life and nothing happens to the butchers that did it.
I hope you are right in that Roe v. Wade, the NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 are all in peril. The problem that I see is if the SCOTUS takes up the case of Mr. Cox and Kettler for making an unregistered silencer before the FGM case.
I don't know if those men are appealing their convictions. And like the Judge said in his ruling that the Federal Government cannot legislate a crime reserved for the states, then it makes no sense for them to regulate guns or any firearm accessories.
Read about Mr. Cox and Kettler here.
The issue of state nullification of federal laws also dovetails with the case of FGM. The leftists are also going into an apoplexy over acting AG Whitiaker's remarks about state nullification.
Read about AG Whiticaker's comments here.
The state also screwed up when they said that they were not relying on the 14th amendment application of the law.
If an unruly toddler is given a swat on the bottom at the grocery store watch the state step in to prosecute the mother and the judges will agree. Maim a little girl for life and nothing happens to the butchers that did it.
I hope you are right in that Roe v. Wade, the NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 are all in peril. The problem that I see is if the SCOTUS takes up the case of Mr. Cox and Kettler for making an unregistered silencer before the FGM case.
I don't know if those men are appealing their convictions. And like the Judge said in his ruling that the Federal Government cannot legislate a crime reserved for the states, then it makes no sense for them to regulate guns or any firearm accessories.
Read about Mr. Cox and Kettler here.
The issue of state nullification of federal laws also dovetails with the case of FGM. The leftists are also going into an apoplexy over acting AG Whitiaker's remarks about state nullification.
Read about AG Whiticaker's comments here.
Someone way back commented something about 'islamaphobia' and whatnot. I ask, is there/are there ANY other religions out there, whom think that this act of FGM is a 'good' thing?
I'm not a FGMologist, nor do I intend to be. But if that ONE act alone is only an 'islam' thing, then I'm perfectly good with being an islamaphobe.
Is here where I'm supposed to say "change my mind?"
I'm not a FGMologist, nor do I intend to be. But if that ONE act alone is only an 'islam' thing, then I'm perfectly good with being an islamaphobe.
Is here where I'm supposed to say "change my mind?"
I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to be 100% loyal to the Koran and at he same time 100% loyal to the US Constitution.
Something's got to give.
I thought it was because Jewish women would not touch anything unless it was 20% off.
We as humans do not need a rule, or law in writing to know, or tell us what is right or wrong. Sexual mutilation of an innocent child is wrong. Should come with the death penalty.
All these men and women who support this, need to volunteer to have their dicks and clits removed to set a good example. Ya know, the gold standard. Be the change
All these men and women who support this, need to volunteer to have their dicks and clits removed to set a good example. Ya know, the gold standard. Be the change
The “mothers” are the ones facilitating this being done to their daughters. It’s beastly.
Truth be told, most Muslims do not believe that FGM is Islamic. It mostly an African thing.
Truth be told, most Muslims do not believe that FGM is Islamic. It mostly an African thing.
