can the same act be perfectly legal in one state and punishable by death in a neighboring state?

[S K]

test case: Oregon and Idaho.

Idaho has a near total ban on abortion, while Oregon has very liberal abortion laws.

Red states keep flirting with passing the death penalty for abortion - let us assume that idaho goes ahead and actually does pass such a law.

A border is just an abstraction - so an abortion can be legal on the Oregon side of the border and punishable by death perhaps a block away on the idaho side.

Does this show the fundamental flaw in the US federal system which is now being tested by Red America amid mutterings of "national divorce"?

[Rick]

"S K" wrote in message
news:160e5998-a94d-4e0e...@googlegroups.com...

It is the nature of our system that states are individual political units
which are free to pass any laws that do not violate the Constitution.
Abortion is not addressed in the Constitution. Whether this constitutes a
flaw or a feature is in the eyes of the beholder.

--

[Rick]

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:ulrhpe$1s1is$5...@dont-email.me...

>The fundamental question is at what point does a state become a country ?
>
>(Incidentally I did post a story about "Texit" a few days ago that
>appears to have displeased the mods :) )

I believe this issue was settled by the Supreme Court in its 1868 ruling in
Texas v. White. That ruling basically said a state could only secede after
getting approval of both houses of Congress and obtaining ratification by
three fourths of the state legislatures. Short of that, a state cannot
unilaterally declare itself a country.

--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in news:ulrhpe$1s1is$57@dont-
email.me:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:39:09 -0800, S K wrote:
>

> The fundamental question is at what point does a state become a country

The US was originally set up as a sort of hybrid, with the individual
states more like separate countries in many ways. After the Civil War,
the Constitution was amended and the Bill of Rights applied to the States
for the first time. After that the states still have many individual
rights as countries might, but the pendulum is more on the side of one
country than individual countries.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[S K]

Texas seems to be de facto becoming a separate country.

They have unilaterally taken over aspects of immigration policy from the federal government.

Short of armed conflict, Texas regards Blue America as enemy territory (busing asylum seekers to Blue America).

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:23:37 -0800 (PST),

I believe that was the standard in 1776, and that's why emissaries were
sent from America to London and the other colonial capitals of the
British Empire, where indeed the emissaries lobbied and got votes by
British House of Lords and House of Commons in favor of US independance,
and by the colonial legistlatures of***** Canada, Australia, Hong Kong,
Singapore, Kenya, Egypt, India, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Bermuda,
Gibraltar, etc. It's a tribute to the belief in freedom of all these
disparate assemblies and a tribute to the persuasiveness of the
emissaries. They are national heroes.

Wait. None of this happened. Why did we not need this in 1776 but the
South needed it in 1860?

*****I'm sure I overstated my list of lands within the British empire at
that time, so please pretend I gave the right list. Corrections are
welcome.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:02:23 -0800 (PST),

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

>Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in news:ulrhpe$1s1is$57@dont-
>email.me:

>...

>> The fundamental question is at what point does a state become a country
>
>The US was originally set up as a sort of hybrid, with the individual
>states more like separate countries in many ways. After the Civil War,
>the Constitution was amended and the Bill of Rights applied to the States
>for the first time. After that the states still have many individual
>rights as countries might, but the pendulum is more on the side of one
>country than individual countries.

It was then, or not too much later, that the US changed, for example,
which verb was used in goverment documents for the country. Before the
end of the Civil War they would say "The United States of America
are...." and since not too long afterwards they say "The United States
of America is...."

(It used to be so much fun to brag about the country, but it rings a
little hollow now that there are so many forces making progress in
ruining its basic nature and its status. I know we've always had
problems of one sort or another, but I hope I live long enough to see
the end of this one.)

[Barry Gold]

Because the South lost the American Civil War. If the 13 colonies had
lost the War of Independence, we would probably have remained a colony
until the UK started freeing its colonies on its own. And we would still
be part of the British Commonwealth.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...