824
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
824 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19143 readers
3375 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the first time that I've agreed with sovcits: right to travel cannot be abridged, or some shit.
That's not what abridged means.
But they're not wrong about the right to travel, they're just wrong when they think it applies to every method of travel that they want to use.
That and ignoring the 10th amendment completely.
They only like the 2nd and sometimes the 1st (as long as they agree with what you're saying)
They only like the 2nd when they agree with you! Remember the Black Panthers?
Touché
Disregarding the fact that getting an abortion should not be a crime, in general, traveling to commit a crime is not a right.
Bank robbers do not get charged with driving to the bank.
Better comparison is
You don't think prosecutors add charges when someone commits a crime? Why do you think Trump is being charged with multiple things?
I have never heard of the charge of 'driving to a crime' being added.
But feel free to show that driving to a bank robbery is a federal crime. I would like to see that law please.
I think what the previous poster was attempting to say is that crossing state lines in the commission of a crime can get you charged with additional crimes. That was the similarity to this specific example in relation to traveling for an abortion or reproductive health care. I just don't think the bank robbery example was very good.
Ok but the better analog here is driving across state lines to smoke weed, you can't stop someone from doing that, even though it is a crime in the state you live in.
and that is a federal crime, but you still won't get charged for it.
First, let me say that I agree this is a much better example.
One caveat would be purchasing Cannabis in a state where it is legal, and then transporting the Cannabis back into a state where it is illegal. That could subject a person who made a legal purchase to criminal charges.
That same logic could be used to justify charging a person for seeking an abortion or reproductive health care in a state where it is legal, and then returning to a state where it is illegal.
Again, I am not justifying this whatsoever. I think this is heinous, unethical, and clearly a violation of civil liberties among other things. However, playing devil's advocate here by pointing out some of the sticky argumentation around the edges that can and will be deployed to allow for this kind of post-hoc justification for criminal charges.
This puts the cart before the horse in important ways. First, the government cannot (except with probable cause) treat you as if you are presumptively guilty of a crime until it's done with the due process of proving it. Is being female and in a car probable cause?
Second, is it a crime to travel somewhere to do a thing that's legal there?
Here, both the 4th Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the constitution (in theory at least) constrain the state and officers of said state- the 4th protects privacy of person, home, effects, and papers and requires a warrant to search those things, and the commerce clause implicitly forbids states from enacting laws that effectively regulate commerce in another state.
In theory, under the Commerce Clause states are not authorized to enact law to criminalize that which is legal in other states- that authority is reserved to congress. If that's the case, the phrase 'traveling to commit a crime is not a right' is missing an important piece- the crime part. If abortion is a crime here and the person is traveling there to do a thing that's legal there, this isn't a crime.
So weed tourists traveling to get high should get the chair?
Intent to commit crime is not a crime