Res Ipsa wrote:I don't think you understand what pro-choice folks are worried about. If a state passed a law that permitted it to round up and kill all children under one year of age, do you really think the federal government would be powerless to do anything about that? That's the fear. And I think it's realistic because the Pences and perhaps the Kavanaughs of the world think abortion is the same thing as rounding up and killing babies. Without choice as a constitutional right, there is arguably nothing to stop the federal government from making abortion a crime in every state.
That is a really bizarre example to use in an abortion discussion. I have to take a moment to let that settle in. Did you seriously just say you're afraid that the federal government would step in to prevent a state from executing children? Okay. Go on...
SMH.
Trying to bring my focus back.
Back to the principle of the matter, I don't see the relevance of anything you just said. Child Murder Fetishes aside, you just affirmed my point. And in a disturbingly validating way. The point is that we're not a democracy. I get it, you want to fundamentally change what we are. The constitution was designed to specifically prevent this. Sure, it's possible though. But the constitution was designed to make it an uphill battle for you.
Also, I would challenge you to show precedent for what you're talking about.
The federal government has no authority when it comes to crime like theft and murder. The idea that a state would legalize murder is quite extreme and silly. But, in the strange event that some Mayan Child Murder cult took over a state, in theory they can do whatever the F they want. Although, being practical, historical precedent re the Mormons seems to indicate that if something crosses the line, like polygamy, those other people will step in to say, "umm, no, that's a bit much."
Pretty hard to imagine that we'll invade foreign nations the way we do but would be totes cool with even worse crap in our own backyard. This is strange fear mongering. It's a terribly weak argument. And the only people buying into it are the ignorant and weak minded, like these crazy women tweeting that they're going to kill themselves if Kavanaugh is confirmed. They'd rather be dead than live in a world without national socialism, or something, to quote a famous historical figure. The narrative is falling apart precisely because this sort of rhetoric simply doesn't jive with the real world.
In a somewhat backhanded way you are validating the reasons I've put forward for why Obgerfell was a bad decision, though. You like the outcome. And I personally don't care about the outcome in terms of gay marriage being legal, put it to a vote and I'd happily join with you to vote Yes. But the decision is deeply flawed in that it compels states to treat marriage in a particular way. It not only affirms a supposed state-level authority that boils down to the regulation of interpersonal relationships, but then carries it further and assumes this power it unto itself.
Which is an authority the fed shouldn't have. We could debate whether even states should have such an authority, but having that authority centralized at the top, yikes. The political winds shift and that's when you get these doomsday theories. Which, I find absurd, but, yeah, possible in theory, I guess.
Barring the extreme case of Child Murder Cults, I don't imagine states and the fed coming together to go after another state. On what basis would conservative justices, who operate by going back to the original intent of the constitution, act in such a way? Where in the original reading of the constitution would the federal government have the authority to tell an individual state that they cannot have gay marriage, or that they cannot have abortions?
I get what you're saying but it's a weak argument. It just isn't practical. The fed is not going to take such an unpopular position. They would not make gay marriage illegal nationwide. That ain't going to happen. And the only way they could even do that would be to legitimize Obgerfell further. Saying, essentially, yep, we have the authority to define marriage, and now we're changing said definition. Might they overturn Obgerfel? I doubt, but maybe. If they did, that would be to say the fed has no such authority. Read the dissents in Obgerfell. There simply isn't a basis from which to argue that the "conservative" justices would rule in an authoritarian kind of way... they would rule in a way that strips power from federal government, not in a way that gives it even more power to do something that nobody likes.
