• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?

Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?


  • Total voters
    47
Well, this guy hasn't defended his dick against hypothetical amputative assault. But there is no doubt he would change his tune, fast, if it was a real assault.

The remedy, as is done with many other 'objectionabale' activities, is to pass a state, county or city law banning the 'objectionable' acitivity.
Unacceptable. While we wait for these banning laws lIttle girls go under the knife.

And why is 'objectionable' in quotes? I did not use that word. I used the word "foul". You think "foul" is too strong, an exaggeration, or somthing?

There is no federal law preventing me from breaking into your home, removing whatever I want, killing your pets and then burning the house to the ground to try to destroy evidence of my presence.
Incorrect. Were there no other laws preventing it then there is always the Commerce Clause!
 
Good point, but there are some "medical procedures" for which a state, county or city cannot pass a law banning "objectionable" activities. That doesn't make this judge wrong, but it perhaps might open a few cans of worms as to what society is allowed to object.

I assume that you refer to the "privacy right" found to exist by the SCOTUS which prohibits a state from regulating abortion (prior to "viability") out of reach. In the case of elective 'genital mutilation' surgery performed on a minor, I doubt that the "privacy right", or freedom of religious expression, of a parent or guardian would apply but, as you say, only the SCOTUS knows for sure.
 
The perils of states rights.

Hopefully the federal government will find a legal way to protect girls from this atrocity since so many states still haven't seen fit to do it.

The Commerce Clause doesn't seem like a legit way to do it. The judge is probably correct on pure constitutional grounds.

While much of this post is correct, it didn't have anything to do with "state's rights." This was all purely federal.
 
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.

States must pass laws making FGM a crime. Michigan didn't have a law when these abhorrent acts were committed. Their law was passed later. All states should pass laws making FGM a crime. As to if its un constitutional or not for Congress to decide what is a crime will probably be decided by higher courts if the ruling is appealed. The judge is simply saying its a state issue not that the acts are not abhorrent.
 
States must pass laws making FGM a crime. Michigan didn't have a law when these abhorrent acts were committed. Their law was passed later.
Incorrect. Genital mutilation has been illegal in Michigan for 22 years. 25 other states also have laws forbidding it.

It may be that Judge Anus has left those laws intact.


All states should pass laws making FGM a crime. As to if its un constitutional or not for Congress to decide what is a crime will probably be decided by higher courts if the ruling is appealed. The judge is simply saying its a state issue not that the acts are not abhorrent.
Congress should be able to take immediate action in the case of the 25 states which do not forbid genital mutilation, if not under the Commerce Clause then under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
 
Strawman.

Not "anything"

But some behavior is so foul that if the Commerce Clause is all we have to use against it then we use the Commerce Clause.

Suppose we were dealing not with mere genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy arms and legs, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go until the legislatures get around to passing laws? You would not say so if it was your goddam arms and legs!
So with this statement, what about the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to enact such a law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
So with this statement, what about the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to enact such a law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

The crime took place in Michigan. The victims were residents of other states. The victims' parents were conducting interstate commerce by transporting them over state lines to submit to criminal procedure.
 
While much of this post is correct, it didn't have anything to do with "state's rights." This was all purely federal.

It had to do with rights which are reserved for the states.

The feds try to get creative to get around states rights and they abuse the commerce clause to do so. This judge said no.
 
It had to do with rights which are reserved for the states.

The feds try to get creative to get around states rights and they abuse the commerce clause to do so. This judge said no.

I'm not sure what "state's right" you have in mind that this "gets around," creatively or otherwise.

Abuse of the Commerce Clause is rampant and a major problem, but that's a problem with illegitimate federal power on its own, without necessarily touching on "state's rights." No state has to be harmed for it to be a problem.
 
The crime took place in Michigan. The victims were residents of other states. The victims' parents were conducting interstate commerce by transporting them over state lines to submit to criminal procedure.

It wasn't illegal in Michigan at that time.

If someone's state declares abortions illegal after detection of a fetal heartbeat, you're implying women would be conducting criminal interstate commerce to seek an abortion in a state which didn't have such restrictive abortion laws.

To which I say, no.


It is not criminal interstate commerce to go to another state to enjoy something which is legal in that state.
 
Last edited:
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it's doubtful that the authors of the constitution had female genital mutilation in mind when determining the commerce clause...because Americans didn't mutilate baby girls back then. I'm sure if this horrific procedure has breeched our shores back in 1789, the founders would have done everything possible in order to prevent it, including a constitutional ban. But in today's America, assimilation means that we must assimilate to the new cultures coming from overseas, not vice versa.

It's a simple question to me: "Does a parent have a right to have their daughter's clitoris removed".

I think it's time to impeach some of these crackpots.
 
It's a simple question to me: "Does a parent have a right to have their daughter's clitoris removed".

I think it's time to impeach some of these crackpots.


That's the only interesting question. There have been cases in the US where parents used religion to deny surgery for a child.
 
Strawman.

Not "anything"

But some exceptional behavior, such as genital mutilation, is so foul that the Commerce Clause should be available for use against it.

Suppose we were dealing not with mere female genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy glans penises, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go? You would not say so if it was your goddam dick!

congressional power is based on what was properly delegated to it by the constitution or subsequent amendments, not based on the "need". Your attitude is why we had FDR do what he did.
 
So with this statement, what about the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to enact such a law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

FGM is disgusting and state law should be passed banning it but even more dangerous is the attitude that the constitution should allow the federal government any power that current whims demand
 
It wasn't illegal in Michigan at that time.
Of course it wasn't! That is why the victims' parents took them to Michigan!


If someone's state declares abortions illegal after detection of a fetal heartbeat, you're implying women would be conducting criminal interstate commerce to seek an abortion in a state which didn't have such restrictive abortion laws.

To which I say, no.
Stop being ridiculous. The speed limit in my home state (NC) is 70mph. The speed limit in Nevada is 80mph. NC cannot charge me for speeding if I go to Nevada and drive 80 mph!


It is not criminal interstate commerce to go to another state to enjoy something which is legal in that state.
No state has jurisdiction in such cases, but the Federal government may have jurisdiction. For example many states have lenient marijuana laws, but the Federal goverment does not.

The issue in this thread is that a Federal judge has ruled that the Federal government does not have jurisdiction in FGM cases. IOW according to him the federal government cannot step in to prevent gross, disgusting child abuse when a state declines to protect the child.

If this is an example of States Rights then the judge and those who agree with him can take States Rights and shove it up the ass.
 
The perils of states rights.

Hopefully the federal government will find a legal way to protect girls from this atrocity since so many states still haven't seen fit to do it.

The Commerce Clause doesn't seem like a legit way to do it. The judge is probably correct on pure constitutional grounds.

A total ban of people who practice this from entering the US shouldn’t raise any controversy
 
Incorrect. Genital mutilation has been illegal in Michigan for 22 years. 25 other states also have laws forbidding it.

It may be that Judge Anus has left those laws intact.



Congress should be able to take immediate action in the case of the 25 states which do not forbid genital mutilation, if not under the Commerce Clause then under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

If I had any computer skills I could link the information. Still got a lot to learn. Search FGM laws in the US, then look for legislation on female genital mutilation in the United States. Its in pdf format and lists laws state by state. Its a reproductive rights site. The federal ban was 22 years ago. Michigan had no FGM laws on the books 22 years ago that I can find. The federal ban must be the law you cite in Michigan. If the federal ban is up held as constitutional then federal charges can be brought in states that don't have FGM laws. If Michigan had proper FGM laws on the books at the time these acts were committed only state charges would have been brought. There would have been no need to apply the 22 year old federal ban. All states just need to get on board and put FGM laws into their criminal code. Everyone can agree that FGM is abhorrent. I have no guess as to how higher courts will rule assuming the ruling will be appealed.
 
congressional power is based on what was properly delegated to it by the constitution or subsequent amendments, not based on the "need". Your attitude is why we had FDR do what he did.

FDR?

When FDR took office the USA was in by far the worst peacetime crisis of its entire existence. Look it up.

When FDR died the USA was an invincible military and economic colossus, and we are still doing pretty damn well,
thanks to the mighty wisdom of his leadership.

I guess Donald Street Pimp Trump is your idea of a great leader. Vomit.
 
Of course it wasn't! That is why the victims' parents took them to Michigan!



Stop being ridiculous. The speed limit in my home state (NC) is 70mph. The speed limit in Nevada is 80mph. NC cannot charge me for speeding if I go to Nevada and drive 80 mph!



No state has jurisdiction in such cases, but the Federal government may have jurisdiction. For example many states have lenient marijuana laws, but the Federal goverment does not.

The issue in this thread is that a Federal judge has ruled that the Federal government does not have jurisdiction in FGM cases. IOW according to him the federal government cannot step in to prevent gross, disgusting child abuse when a state declines to protect the child.

If this is an example of States Rights then the judge and those who agree with him can take States Rights and shove it up the ass.



Yes. There is a problem. But it is not solved by trying to use the Commerce Clause as a hammer to prosecute people for doing things which are legal in the state in which they are doing them.

There has to be another way.


Yes, the states which allow this are evil. But arbitrarily twisting the Constitution in absurd ways is not the way to stop the evil. There has to be another way, one which doesn't say we can make the Constitution mean whatever we want it to mean to fit the ends we want to achieve.
 
FDR?

When FDR took office the USA was in by far the worst peacetime crisis of its entire existence. Look it up.

When FDR died the USA was an invincible military and economic colossus, and we are still doing pretty damn well,
thanks to the mighty wisdom of his leadership.

I guess Donald Street Pimp Trump is your idea of a great leader. Vomit.

Why didn't you just come out and say you aren't really able to discuss constitutional limits on the federal government or understand the commerce clause?
 
If I had any computer skills I could link the information. Still got a lot to learn. Search FGM laws in the US, then look for legislation on female genital mutilation in the United States. Its in pdf format and lists laws state by state. Its a reproductive rights site. The federal ban was 22 years ago. Michigan had no FGM laws on the books 22 years ago that I can find. The federal ban must be the law you cite in Michigan. If the federal ban is up held as constitutional then federal charges can be brought in states that don't have FGM laws. If Michigan had proper FGM laws on the books at the time these acts were committed only state charges would have been brought. There would have been no need to apply the 22 year old federal ban. All states just need to get on board and put FGM laws into their criminal code. Everyone can agree that FGM is abhorrent. I have no guess as to how higher courts will rule assuming the ruling will be appealed.
You are correct- Michigan only got around to banning FGM in 2017.

Children should enjoy protection from this foul procedure without the foul procedure having to be minutely spelled out in statutes.

Judge Anus thinks an actual mutilated child is less bad than some supposed violation of the Constitution, or States Rights, or whatever. He is wrong. When the Constitution permits child abuse, then the Constitution should be ignored.
 
Really!! Four people agreed that genital mutilation for women is okay...we do live in a weird society.
 
Strawman.

Not "anything"

But some behavior is so foul that if the Commerce Clause is all we have to use against it then we use the Commerce Clause.

Suppose we were dealing not with mere genital mutilation but with amputation of healthy arms and legs, and there was no possible barrier but the Commerce Clause? Just let it go until the legislatures get around to passing laws? You would not say so if it was your goddam arms and legs!

Well, USViking, even if Michigan did not previously have an anti-Female Genital Mutilation law on the books, thankfully Michigan has a law on the books that can be used against this monster of a woman: Michigan's Child Abuse statute.

Here is the relevant language:

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.136b Definitions; child abuse; degrees; penalties; exception; affirmative defense.
Sec. 136b.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Child" means a person who is less than 18 years of age and is not emancipated by operation of law as provided in section 4 of 1968 PA 293, MCL 722.4.

(b) "Cruel" means brutal, inhuman, sadistic, or that which torments.

(c) "Omission" means a willful failure to provide food, clothing, or shelter necessary for a child's welfare or willful abandonment of a child.

(d) "Person" means a child's parent or guardian or any other person who cares for, has custody of, or has authority over a child regardless of the length of time that a child is cared for, in the custody of, or subject to the authority of that person.

(e) "Physical harm" means any injury to a child's physical condition.

(f) "Serious physical harm" means any physical injury to a child that seriously impairs the child's health or physical well-being, including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning, burn or scald, or severe cut.

(g) "Serious mental harm" means an injury to a child's mental condition or welfare that is not necessarily permanent but results in visibly demonstrable manifestations of a substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life.

(2) A person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child. Child abuse in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years.

(3) A person is guilty of child abuse in the second degree if any of the following apply:

(a) The person's omission causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child or if the person's reckless act causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child.

(b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child regardless of whether harm results.

(c) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that is cruel to a child regardless of whether harm results.

(d) The person or a licensee as licensee is defined in section 1 of 1973 PA 116, MCL 722.111, violates section 15(2) of 1993 PA 218, MCL 722.125.

(4) Child abuse in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment as follows:

(a) For a first offense, not more than 10 years.

(b) For a second or subsequent offense, not more than 20 years.

(5) A person is guilty of child abuse in the third degree if any of the following apply:

(a) The person knowingly or intentionally causes physical harm to a child.

(b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, and the act results in physical harm to a child.

(6) Child abuse in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years.

(7) A person is guilty of child abuse in the fourth degree if any of the following apply:

(a) The person's omission or reckless act causes physical harm to a child.

(b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, regardless of whether physical harm results.

(8) Child abuse in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year.

(9) This section does not prohibit a parent or guardian, or other person permitted by law or authorized by the parent or guardian, from taking steps to reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force.
 
Back
Top Bottom