Glenn Reynolds and Jonathan Adler say no. Here’s Professor Adler: The U.S. of House of Representatives is preparing to consider a bill — the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (PUCPA) — that would prohibit most abortions performed after 20 weeks from conception. … … [E]ven if one assumes that a prohibition on post-20-week abortions would be constitutional if enacted by a…Details
Sen. Marco Rubio apparently has gotten himself into a little pickle.
You see, the Florida Senator was one of the Republicans who signed onto a bill requiring lawmakers to provide constitutional justification for any legislation filed in Congress. That sounded like a really cool idea at the time. “Conservatives” LOVE that stuff!
But what happens when you want to do something and no constitutional justification exists?
Well, you do what politicians have done since the beginning of time. You make crap up.
That doesn’t always prove easy, as Rubio is finding out. It takes time to conjure up a convincing lie out of thin air. Of course, that never stopped any politician practicing constitutional voodoo to further his agenda through the exercise of federal power – even if that authority doesn’t actually exist. They just call lack of constitutional authority an “inconvenience.”
It seems the Tea Party darling from Florida has a little “inconvenience” on his hands. He needs to reestablish his conservative creds, tattered by his support for immigration reform. What better way to rekindle conservative romance than to play the pro-life card? So, Rubio announced earlier this month that he wants to serve as the lead sponsor on a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks.
But three weeks later…no bill. Why? Well, it seems the Republicans are having a little difficulty agreeing on the enumerated power that authorizes the federal government to legislate on abortion. And I can tell you exactly why they are having this problem.
THE POWER DOESN’T FREAKING EXIST!!!Details
AUSTIN, Texas -You don’t play football on an ice hockey rink.
Texas just provided a shining example of how the abortion issue was intended to play out in its proper arena.
At the state level – like football on a football field.
After weeks of contentious debate, the Texas Senate gave final approval to strict restrictions on abortion providers Friday night. HB2 prohibits abortions after 20 weeks. The legislation also requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, will allow the procedure only in surgical centers, and places limits on where and when women can take pills that induce abortions.
Gov. Rick Perry was part of the impetus behind the bill, calling a special session to reconsider the measure after a filibuster by Sen. Wendy Davis killed the legislation during the regular session.
“Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life,” Perry said after the Senate give its final approval 19-11.
Once Perry inks his name on the bill, we will witness a shining example of how the abortion issue was never intended to play out – in the federal courts.
Football on an ice hockey rink.
Nothing polarized Americans like the abortion debate. Many will hail Texas for protecting the lives of the unborn. Others will demonize the Lone Star State as backward and waging a war on women. But no matter what view you hold, the decision was Texas’ to make. Nothing in the Constitution delegates any power for the federal government to legislate on abortion, and since the issue falls under the objects left to the states and the people, the federal courts should butt out.Details
News broke recently that Florida Senator Marco Rubio plans to sponsor a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. With Rubio’s reputation recently taking a hit in conservative circles, a cynic might be excused for considering this a political move instead of a principled stand. Principled or not, there are two questions that Rubio has apparently not considered: is it rational to argue this issue at the national level and is such a bill constitutional.
To answer if it is rational, let’s run through a quick hypothetical scenario. Let’s say you’re walking down your street and come upon one of your neighbors lying dead in his driveway with a knife sticking out of his back. As your neighbors crowd around the scene, you see someone dialing their phone. Who do you think this person is calling?
Maybe they’re calling the President of the United States. After all, many murders happen across the country every day, clearly making this a national issue that demands the president’s attention. Or, if not the president, maybe they’ve dialed the offices of federal senators and representatives to let them know about the murder. When it’s time to prosecute the assailant, where does the trial take place? Well, an issue as important and widespread as murder certainly demands the attention of the Supreme Court.
Preposterous, right? Of course a local crime commands a local response. It would be irrational to use national machinery to address a local or state issue like a violent crime of one individual towards another.Details