this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
771 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2546 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago (3 children)

but do not counter state laws

the US has been letting states make decisions instead of making federal laws stick just like cannabis is federally illegal unless the state says so

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

State laws don't trump federal laws. Weed is still federally illegal and you can't own firearms if you smoke, regardless of what your state says.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I did not believe it at first, but they overturned that in August

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I highly doubt anyone "overturned" the supremacy clause of the constitution.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's still federally illegal. As I explained to the other person, a state can allow marijuana users to apply for a carry permit, but they're still federally prohibited from owning firearms.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/marijuana-users-and-gun-supporters-gear-up-for-imminent-colorado-ballot-measure-battle/ar-AA1mnxVc

federal laws are only recognized when the state favors federal law

statutes and cases that upheld federal laws are being dismantled

can not have fifty states with fifty different set of laws and federal laws that contradicts some of the state laws demanding to be upheld without something breaking

wait that has happened before in US history over states wanting individual laws over federal laws

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Friendly reminder that we literally fought a war over this, and the good guys absolutely won that war, and we're the people fighting to secure federal supremacy.

"States rights" is almost never invoked unless it's to oppress someone.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

The proposed ballot initiative aims to sever this legal knot by removing language from Colorado law disqualifying concealed carry permit applicants if they're federally ineligible to own a gun.

The law they're trying to change is the carry permit law, which is a state by state law. Currently, residents of Colorado cannot obtain a license if they are not federally allowed to own firearms. This ballot measure only seeks to remove that language from the law, meaning even if the measure passes and Marijuana users can apply for a Colorado concealed carry permit, they are still federally barred from owning guns.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is where the law collides with practical reality. Enforcing the federal cannabis ban has become something that the government does not have the resources to enforce on its own. Blocking abortion bans on the other hand is comparatively a simple task for the federal government.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

has it been a simple task?

not a federal thing anymore