• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution

    That’s why you can buy weed in Colorado and not be prosecuted in Texas, as an example.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      So basically someone would have to appeal it to the SC if the feds came after them.

      Considering the state of the court, I wouldn’t count on the commerce clause standing in regards to prosecuting abortions.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is a violation until it goes to scotus who will say that it doesn’t apply just like with the precedent of Roe v Wade and that made up case about a website for a gay couple.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I definitely understand the sentiment, but this is literally written into the constitution - the others are reinterpretations of former decisions

        They’re both bullshit, and one didn’t even have standing, but they’re much easier to “justify”