>

Cant understand why there is not a mass exodus of women from red states that want to control their bodies. Cant understand there are women in power determined to take away a womans control of her body. Just dont get it in this century. 200 years ago when no one knew better and the lord of the manor controlled everyone you could understand things just a wee bit
Wouldn't that be the same as not letting you go to Vegas and gamble if your home state does not have legal gambling? >

Yes. It’s clearly unconstitutional and will never hold up in court. >

I wouldn’t count on it. >

Imagine any State passing laws that are enforceable in any other State. Anyways, all you Texans better pay your California taxes or straight to jail. >

Well the federal gov't sets baseline laws and can willfully pull back funding to states based off of states not following those laws so it's not too hard to imagine. It's not a united states anymore it's a State finding states. >

This sounds strangely similar to the fugitive slave laws and political environment leading up to the civil war to be honest >

Yes, it’s very similar. 
Both are the exact opposite of “states rights.” >

Those proclaiming "states' rights" have never been satisfied with only controlling states.
Hatred is funny that way. >

Also, they've never been satisfied to control just their state. They want every state to follow what they do. >

From my corner of the prairie we'd be happy with controlling our own state/boundary. It's a majority rule in the metro's that try to control us and enact frivolous laws. We aren't interested in laws... just our communities... >


It's a majority rule in the metro's that try to control us and enact frivolous laws

Also known as democracy. >

Some states need to learn how to mind their own business. You know what states I’m talking about. >

California, Utah, and Texas >

If I had to guess, I think that this would get struck down by the Supreme Court. 
Brett Kavanaugh is the swing vote on the Supreme Court and stated in his Dobbs concurrence:
“For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” >

If it was anything less that 9-0 it would be a travesty of justice. >

The simple answer is they can't stop you from doing it in another state and punishing you for doing so would violate your constitutional rights to freely travel between states.
The complicated answer is that requires an insanely partisan SCOTUS to be impartial in a ruling. >

Kavanaugh discusses this exact scenario in his concurring opinion on Dobbs:

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related le-
gal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially
difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a
State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another
State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no
based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May
a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an
abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect?
In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process
Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of
Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).

So -- at least with the current Court makeup -- you could rely on at least four justices getting the simple answer right.  Roberts likely makes this five. >

It's curious how he replies upon one unenumerated right to dismiss concerns about how he's claiming another unenumerated right doesn't exist, isn't it? >

Not really.  The nature of unenumerated rights is that people will believe that different ones exist.  Dobbs wasn't a repudiation of unemurated rights per se, nor was Roe an endorsement of every unemurated right everyone has ever argued exists. >

Dobbs wasn't a repudiation of unenumerated rights per se, no.
But the inherently dishonest judicial "philosophy" of originalism is.
Which is why it's funny to see a self-proclaimed originalist make exactly that argument. "I won't strike down the unenumerated rights I argue never existed in the first place - an unenumerated right keeps me from doing that!" >

I don't think there's anything incompatible between unenumerated rights and originalism.  It's quite reasonable to infer things from the original meaning.  
The argument with respect to Roe is that abortion was never part of the original intent of the amendment.  On the other hand, the right to travel implies that you won't be punished for doing it, even if it's not explicitly stated. That's a right is in keeping with the original intent, even if it's not explicitly set out.
The way you're thinking about if seems to in line with an extreme form of strict constructionism, which is pretty widely derided. >


I don't think there's anything incompatible between unenumerated rights and originalism.

You don't think there's anything incompatible between unenumerated rights and a claim that they don't exist? I can't agree there.

The way you're thinking about if seems to in line with an extreme form of strict constructionism, which is pretty widely derided.

An extreme and dishonest form of strict constructionism, yes. That's what originalism is. It's strict constructionism plus blatant lying to claim that the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist.
You are correct that it is pretty widely derided - but it also currently runs the Supreme Court. >

Originalism does not imply that unenumerated rights don't exist. >

You are correct - it doesn't imply that. Originalism screams that like a schizophrenic on a street corner you can't get to just shut the hell up.
As Scalia himself said: "The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated." [Emphasis mine.] >

Looking for a Redditor to fact check me but wasn’t the fugitive salve act and the supreme court ruling in irs favor what kicked off the first civil war? >

A number of issues teed up the civil war, the fugitive slave act among them.
Also see Missouri Compromise overturned, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Lincoln elected, etc.  Many events both intertwined & alone. >

States cannot prosecute you for legal actions in other states. Just like you cannot be arrested for gambling in Las Vegas if your state outlaws it. The problem is the SCOTUS is partisan and not acting in good faith. >

Has this happened? I keep hearing this is going to happen but haven't heard news of it actually happening. >

It hasn't happened yet, but Republicans are trying, like in Missouri. >

Normally I'd say the Supreme Court takes care of the problem, but this Court went off the rails  and I'm not sure they care any longer about constitutionality (or at least anything beyond their own tortured Christo-centric interpretation of constitutionality). >

Wasn't there a chapter in freakanomics about a country that banned abortion. By the time the children who born after the ban became of adult age, the country was in turmoil and it revolted against its own government. >

Bad things happened in Romania when they outlawed abortion and contraception. >

I believe something like this will happen in the states that imprison women and doctors for abortions. But at a smaller scale. And Im not sure if they will go after their state government. For some reason, events of massive violence in the US lacks direction and goals. When acts of mass violence happens, it happens to a lot of bystanders. We will probably see growth in poorer populations in red states and a lot of crime born out of desperation and unchecked mental health.
This will also lead to mentally unstable, not just bad actors playing dumb, politicians elected to the federal government. The constant stalemate caused by these mentally unstable people will create issues in commerce and public health. Another super power will take the US's position in the world market. >


This will also lead to mentally unstable, not just bad actors playing dumb, politicians elected to the federal government.

You could say this in the future tense maybe around 1994 or 2000.
Today, with Gaetz, Greene, Boebert?
Louie Gohmert banging on tables and yelling throughout the testimony of witnesses he doesn't want heard?
Whatever line there was, it's in the rearview.
(I'd talk about Madison Cawthorn, too, but Republicans decided that him feeling up his male cousin was a bridge too far. Not his hundreds of sexual harassment claims or his calling for mass murder, of course.) >

I think it is blatantly unconstitutional and would get struck down by a lower federal court.  SCOTUS wouldn't even hear it in my opinion >

How can we have people running from state to state, be it for an abortion or because they're trans or to simply want to live unmolested, and still call ourselves the United States of America?
Once we had a constitution that guaranteed freedoms covering all citizens living in this republic. Now we have states creating their own laws in direct violation of that constitution and rich people not being held subject to laws at all.
I've been a life-long Democrat but I feel like our elected leaders are just warming their hands over the societal bonfire the Republicans are stoking. >


How can we have people running from state to state, be it for an abortion or because they're trans or to simply want to live unmolested, and still call ourselves the United States of America?

We can't. That's the inevitable goal of conservatives.
We got here by entertaining the idea that one person's rights can violate another's. 
My free speech violates your right not to hear something you don't like. My desire to own a gun overrides your right to safety. My existing as an LGBT person violates your freedom of religion. These are nonsensical ideas, of course, comical on their face - but they are nonetheless legal concepts conservatives have championed, and then gotten a hearing, and now have to be taken seriously.
Edit: To the apparently shadowbanned comment - I am an authoritarian for...warning against authoritarianism? Make that make sense, I dare you. >

Do you mean all the assholes in my neighborhood who have loud go-fast cars (and little, itty, bitty dicks) don't violate my right to peaceful use of my property?
The guy who ate my pie didn't intrude on my right to have my pie?
The person who takes my life doesn't deprive me of my right to life. >

I don’t see how the woman can be charged for anything that occurs outside of the states jurisdiction. That’s the whole point of states having their own laws. If I buy and joint and use it in Denver Texas can’t charge me with a buying weed. >

The Constitution says that all states have to recognize the laws of all other states, so it would be a constitutional crisis if a state tries to charge somebody for doing something that's legal in another state. >

It wouldn’t surprise me if at least one state starts prosecuting returning women for capital murder and then fast track the executions before SCOTUS can give a ruling. >

Sorry if this has already been said, but one long term issue is less votes from women/individuals who would vote democrat and most likely the intent of this, not to "save the babies".
Texas is trying it as a felony, which takes away the right to vote of said person if found guilty.