Comment by jauntywundrkind | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jauntywundrkind | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jauntywundrkind

Makes me think of the 2 people (Bruce Friedman and Vicky Baggett) in Florida who have gotten hundreds of books removed from libraries. https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2023/08/24/florida-s...

I detest that so few people can hold the system in such terror, can have such outsized horrible impact on the world.

Then again, it's not always a small force. America has voted for a party that has promised again and again to do everything they can to outlaw abortion as broadly as possible. And now, in 2023, that age has come. At least it was heralded in with really great ads though! https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-twitter-bans-ad-201139304.h...

It's with great regret that I find it seem like civilization has to armor up, has to really defend it's tolerance & getting along against what feels like rabid anti-tolerant extremism. The fringe has just made itself so vocal, so petulant, and the question of how the world copes with these strident folks looms: it seems so confounding, so difficult. We dont have the spare capacity to be dealing with the worst, letting them suck up our energy & roadblock the governance & progress this world needs to be making some headway on.

>I detest that so few people can hold the system in such terror, can have such outsized horrible impact on the world.

People should remember this whenever they feel "voting doesn't work" or "government ignores us". Look at it in another light; these are government institutions and two seemingly normal people made a huge change by being persistent.

Now imagine if we had a dozen people that persistent defending that content. I know the ability to be that persistent is in itself a sign of priveledge (or simply age. being retired gives a lot of time to lobby), but it also suggests that a lot of people in a few meetings can fight back.

I could write pages and pages of all the dumb crap that progressives do, but I guess "not voting for their candidate because "they're not vegan enough" or "has a more centered position in some fringe topic" to be at the top items of the list

Like it or not, abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over.

Tell that to the Republicans who want a federal ban.

p.s. It's a shame when so many people loose the right to their own bodies, despite the 13th amendment.

Not really. SCOTUS just ruled that constitution isn't responsible of enforcing that right, and noted that there's currently no federal law on the topic. But if congress passed a bill about guaranteeing abortion, it would become “federal concern”.

Last year, this statement would have been factually incorrect. This year, this statement is factually correct. Like it or not.

That statement ("abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over") was factually incorrect last year and is still factually incorrect this year – insofar as one accepts SCOTUS as the ultimate authority on what the US Constitution says.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [0] is a federal law prohibiting certain abortion procedures. SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart, holding that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate abortion, and that the regulation in question was not contrary to Roe or Casey. Dobbs did nothing to overturn either the 2003 Act nor that 2007 decision, so abortion remains a federal concern, within Congress' power to regulate. (Thomas wrote a concurrence, joined by Scalia, casting doubt on whether such an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause is correct, but saying that this particular case was not the right vehicle for examining that issue.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

It was always correct, which is why by the end the defense of Roe was reduced to stare decisis.

The constitution - or rather, judicial interpretation of the constitution - is constantly in flux. The kinda things that were seen as constitutionally valid by SCOTUS less than a century ago are completely off the wall compared to today. And today's views will likely be very different from a future court's interpretation.

It's in flux because it's really difficult for us to change the constitution. So, we basically live patch the constitution with the supreme court.

A proper fix would let the constitution change over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com