Yup, boarder towns in red states are going to start stopping women as they travel through their towns to make sure they aren’t pregnant.
Yup, boarder towns in red states are going to start stopping women as they travel through their towns to make sure they aren’t pregnant.
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
deleted by creator
Bank robbers do not get charged with driving to the bank.
Better comparison is
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Intent to commit crime is not a crime
So weed tourists traveling to get high should get the chair?