yeah, Gorsuch freaked out over it.
Reservations probably don't want to test that law until there is a more lawful SC composition.

I thought it was the other way around. Gorsuch actually complained that the SC ruling was another government violation of Indian treaties.

The case let the state enforce state laws on Indian lands, IIRC.

ETA: Maybe I misread the first post. :o

Reservations aren't completely immune to state laws, but the authority of state laws over reservations is still pretty restricted.

They cannot do that. States cannot criminalize anything which happens outside their borders (or, in the case of Indian reservations, outside their jurisdiction), even for their own citizens. There is no ambiguity in the constitution, federal law, or case law on this point. Nobody is trying to change that. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box.

But can’t someone be charged with offences committed in another state on their return to their home state?

If the Trump years taught us anything, you only cannot do something if someone actually stops you.


There are states that are attempting to criminalize traveling to a different state to do things that are illegal in their own state. The only group that can ultimately stop them is a ideology compromised SCOTUS. In other words, no one.

They can be extradited to that other state to be charged with crimes in that state. But you can't be prosecuted in California for something you did in Nevada.

Now that I think about it, it is targeting people who are helping pregnant people go across state lines to do something that is illegal in the home state.

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

no, it's not, because it's an infringement both in Nevada and California.

What we are talking about is California going after you for exceeding the lower California speed limit on a Nevada highway with higher speed limit.

The ticket would still be from a court in Nevada. California doesn't care about it one way or the other.

No, a ticket in Nevada is not a ticket in CA. One state does not ticket for infringements in another state.

No, they cannot. States have no jurisdiction over what happens in another state. No state has the authority to criminalize any action that takes place outside its borders. There is no ambiguity on this point, and it is not peculiar to abortion. And it won't change for the sake of abortion precisely because it's so fundamental to everything about the federal structure of our government. Nobody wants to do that. Nobody is even talking about doing that.

That doesn't matter. California law has no bearing on what you do in Nevada. Only Nevada law (or federal law if applicable) matters.

This is correct. Nevada can mail the ticket to your California address, but Nevada still only has jurisdiction for what you do while in Nevada. Moving out of Nevada does not immunize you against what you did in Nevada that violated Nevada law, but the ticket comes from Nevada. California does not in general care, and if you never plan to return to Nevada you may be able to ignore it. For more serious matters, Nevada could ask California to extradite you, but it's still Nevada law being enforced by the Nevada government for offenses you committed within Nevada. California can't charge you for violations of California law committed in Nevada, and Nevada cannot charge you for violations of Nevada law committed in California.

With five ******** on the Supreme Court who think they run this country, all bets are off.

Missouri is talking about it:

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...t-out-of-state

Are you quite sure of this? I know this is how it ought to be, and how it has traditionally been presumed to be. But there are people, right now, in positions of political authority who do want to criminalize abortion outside their own state's borders. Whether they can actually get away with it is another matter. YOU may not want to open that box, and you may be right that it will not be opened, but there are people just stupid and bigoted enough to be prying at it as we speak.

And is the Constitution unambiguous about this? What I read there (apart from the issue of fugitive slaves) is this: It does not limit what a state can declare a crime, nor does it require the crime to be a felony, nor does it demand conviction or even a good case. Only a charge. If a State declares that seeking an abortion in another state is a crime, then a person who does so can be charged with a crime, and according to the Constitution can be extradited. Now of course you can say that this is ridiculous and unAmerican and this and that, but if you are a strict constructionist and originalist in your reading of the Constitution, there's room for some nasty stuff to bubble up. If you declare that seeking an abortion out of state is a crime, even a misdemeanor, you can charge that crime even if, by some other means, it is not legal to charge for actually getting it. Case law and custom and common understanding notwithstanding, there is no Constitutional guarantee of free travel between states.

Of course that will never happen. Ha Ha. Nobody is that stupid. Ha ha.

Fixed.

The sentences I highlighted are quite false. The spoiler below contains a sampling of relevant facts from members who are more well-informed on this subject.

Maybe the scariest sentence in the above link:
We can say all we want about what's supposed to be unconstitutional. But if the SC closes its eyes, there's no recourse.

Yes. I am quite sure. Article 4, section 1 means one state’s laws cannot overrule anothers. Section 2 means every citizen of any state has the rights of every state. Combined, they mean that one state cannot invade the jurisdiction of another state even for their own citizens and criminalize in another state what that state allows.

There is no ambiguity about this. It will not change. And a few idiots who don’t understand that won’t change it.

Extradition is a separate matter, and so is federal law, so the fugitive slave act has no bearing on this argument.

No. And you can't be extradited for minor infractions like a traffic citation. Nor will a state pursue extradition for misdemeanors.

I see I was ninja'd by half a dozen people. :D

Your naïveté is adorable. You are just so determined to ignore the damage Trump and Co. did to American institutions. These things can only not happen if someone steps up and stops them from happening. The GOP has spent decades eroding those people away and Trump nearly wiped out the last of them.

Just to be clear, you are relying on institutions to save the US government, but the Republicans are destroying those institutions. Once they are too weak, nothing written in the Constitution is going to matter.

I think you are misreading this, or at least misreading what I am talking about. Article 4, which I quoted, says explicitly that a crime committed in one state cannot be escaped by going to another state. It does not specify whether that other state does or does not count the crime the same. If you commit a crime in one state, that state can extradite you on the charge. A person can enjoy the privileges and immunities of "the several states," which, as I and some others read it, means that the privileges and immunities granted to the entire United States apply to all the States, and that a visitor to any State can enjoy its privileges and immunities the same as a resident. It does not mean that things legal in one state must be legal in another.

I do believe (as I did say, I think) that the Constitution would forbid a state from declaring that what happens in another state is illegal. Thus, it seems clear, a person from Mississippi who came to Vermont for an abortion, for example, could not be charged with the abortion itself, nor could the providers of it be charged if they did not involve themselves in some way within Mississippi. But if Mississippi passed a law stating that leaving the state for the purpose of an abortion was a crime, then that crime would be committed in Mississippi, and the Constitution says that that crime could be prosecuted, not only if the person returns, but if she does not. And if Mississippi were to pass a law saying that advocating abortion is a crime, then if a provider in Vermont advertised their services in a publication that appeared in Mississippi, they might find themselves liable as well.

I bring up the fugitive slave laws, not because I think them directly relevant: of course the abolition of slavery makes fugitive slaves nonexistent, and the laws were repealed. But the basic constitutional principle on which they were based - that a State may not legally harbor fugitives from the laws of another - remains, as far as I can determine, unchallenged.

And stupid as such laws might be, as selectively, invasively, and stupidly enforced as they inevitably would be, and as just plain bad all around, and even if doomed to failure in court tests, such laws are under consideration by opponents of abortion right now. They're out there. Pandora is carrying a crowbar.

Yes. I get that, and I'm not contending it's wrong. I'm saying that isn't the issue.

Also true. If you, say, hire a hooker in California, you can be prosecuted for that even if you go to a county in Nevada where it's legal.

But that doesn't mean that states have any jurisdiction over what happens in other states. They do not.

Yes, they can. But a crime in one state can only be a crime under that state's laws. California cannot prosecute you for hiring a hooker in Nevada.

Which means that if abortion is legal in California, it's legal for everyone in California. If you're visiting California from a state where it's illegal, you can still legally get an abortion in California, because you have all the privileges and immunities of a resident of California, and may do what it is legal for citizens of California to do within California.

I know that. But that's not the issue. Missouri can make abortion illegal in Missouri. Missouri cannot make abortion illegal in California. Not for Californians, and not for Missourians.

And that's the point. Which means that states cannot prosecute citizens for getting abortions out-of-state even if they make it illegal in state.

Except they cannot do that either, since that's a restriction on interstate travel which states are not allowed to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...ted_States_law

That immediately runs afoul of the 1st amendment, so they can't do that either.

Sure, but so what? You aren't a fugitive if you haven't broken the law, and I'm saying that states can't make going out of state to get an abortion illegal. So people who do so aren't fugitives, and this isn't relevant.

And just in case it's not obvious that this is how the Supreme Court would rule, Kavanaugh in his Dobbs concurrence specifically said that's how he would rule: states cannot prohibit travel out-of-state for abortions.

This kind of paranoia must be exhausting.

Back to addressing this lie with more evidence.

From Donald Trump to Mike Pence, the GOP parrots claims about 'abortions at the moment of birth' that experts call 'terrible lies' and a 'complete falsehood' Of course Drumpf promoted the lie:
And there's more:
The reality:
The data:
Raising money and fear mongering for votes:
I know you like to pretend you are not persuaded by these kinds of political lies, but here's a case where you clearly are. You could admit it and quit amplifying the falsehood or you can stick to your guns and never provide any evidence because there isn't any.

This is all about criminal law. But it doesn't say a word about civil law. The Texas law, which the SC did not overturn, allows any private party to sue anyone for obtaining or assisting (very broadly speaking) anyone to obtain an abortion. Suppose other states pass similar laws. It wouldn't matter where a woman actually got an abortion; for the purpose of a civil suit in her home state, it would only matter that she did (or that somebody else bought her a bus ticket or drove her to the station or helped her find a clinic, etc., etc.). That's the real danger, and the Constitution doesn't say a word about it.



'

If Trump is held accountable for his attempted coup, then I will concede to that. If he doesn’t, my point is made.

Nope, still wrong. State courts don't have civil law jurisdiction for out of state actions any more than they do for criminal law. And you aren't accurately describing the Texas law either.

You are addressing claims I never made. I never made any claims about what any particular law said about 9th month abortions. I said some activists want them to be unrestricted. None of your responses contradict that. I also said that third trimester elective abortions happen, I didn’t say they were common, and again, your sources don’t actually contradict me. I didn’t say they happen moments before birth.

You also seem to want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell didn’t exist.

No, you pretty much made mine.

Edited by jimbob:

personal attack removed

plenty of empirical evidence that Upchurch's scary world is the real one.
One look at the blatant activism of Trump appointed Judges or anti-democracy rhetoric of republican politicians should make everyone scared.

The rise of authoritarianism is a global phenomenon, its most common trait an erosion of civil liberties. There was an attempted coup to overthrow your government just last year. SCOTUS now openly employs extra legal and dubious reasoning to overturn settled precedent. This makes an accusation that others ignore reality pure projection. Sad.

I get what you're saying, and I hope you're right, but I just keep having to add that there are, right now, legislators who are trying to implement the very laws you claim cannot be implemented. I would like to think they will be thwarted by cooler heads and reasonable interpreters of the law, but I think there will be a lot of mess and damage on the way.

Despite what Kavanaugh might have said, I think it might be a poor idea to trust him, and though the right to interstate travel has plenty of precedent, we are becoming increasingly aware that precedent has no teeth. There is no constitutional right to interstate travel as such. There is a constitutional right, if you get into a state, to enjoy the full rights and privileges and laws that apply to its citizens, and a constitutional rule that no state can abridge rights that are Federally established, but that does not, by itself, rule out laws governing an individual's travel out of a state unless there is an explicit Federal law establishing it.

And there is still the question of what might happen if the US congress should manage to pass a nationwide abortion law. If such a thing is possible, and if such a thing survives challenges to its constitutionality, then the Federal government certainly can control interstate travel, as it does in other cases now.

Of course most of the possibilities here are absurd and impractical, and unlikely to survive scrutiny and litigation, but I don't think, in the world of today, that that means someone won't try hard to make them happen, and, unfortunately it does not mean conclusively that they never will.

In this case, though, I hope I'm as wrong as you allege.

You are incapable of admitting your mistake. I knew you'd find some ludicrous claim you never said what you said and yet I quoted you verbatim.

No it is not actually done, ever.

Which of us is living in a fantasy world? Do you agree that, with all the available evidence, Trump and Co. staged a coup attempt on 1/6? Do you agree that, maybe for the first time, the Supreme Court has removed rights previously enjoyed by US citizens? Do you agree that one US party, if determined, can undermine the US institutions necessary for the country to function?

I’ve given my objective criteria for how I my position could be shown or falsified, although I acknowledge the timescale has been, and may continue to be, in terms of years. Can you do the same?

It's like the damage Toto does to the institutions of Oz by pulling back the curtain. Because of Toto, the Munchkin's heads are full of wild conspiracies that the current management of Oz is, and always has been, institutionally dishonest.

Huh. Maybe this is why I have the impression it is more widespread, I’m surrounded by it. Still, there is no way other red states are going to let Missouri be the only one doing this. And, who is going to stop them? (Or, I suppose, us, in this case.)

I’m not following.

Institutions aren’t inherently dishonest. They are inherently made up. They have meaning because we agree they have meaning and because the alternative is far worse. Like language or money.

I didn't say it's done. I said some extremists WANT it to be legal. Really, learn to read.