Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Abortion was determined not to have been covered by the...

First 8 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
jambo12

46,541 Posts.

1

14/02/24

13:39

Post #: 72402409
Share

Originally posted by Goldbricker03 ↑

The argument was that a State shouldn't be able to determine a national election. However, national election outcomes depend on State's ballots. States have to convene a convention to ratify Constitutional Amendements. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade, they threw the abortion question back to the States claiming that the Federal ruling should take a second place to State's Rights. So, does the Supreme Court uphold their philosophy that big questions belong to States to decide, or are they hypocritical, claiming that States don't have a right to decide electoral issues, thus taking away State's rights in favor of the National Federalists by stating that States don't have standing to decide election candidate eligibility, or worse, a right if State Supreme Court Justices to be able to interpret Federal Law? If that is the case, then how many State Supreme Court decisions will be invalidated if the Supreme Court tells Colorado that Trump has to be on their ballot, because what the Colorado Supreme Court thinks regarding the 14th Amendment doesn't matter?

Expand

Abortion was determined not to have been covered by the Constitution.

Unlikely they decide that about ballot eligibility.

We'll find out soon enough.
6 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

NST

Investors cut back Northern Star as gold production falls

Trump chides Powell as Goldman call for calm. The RBA must be nervous

AII

Inside the depths of Panasqueira: A legacy carved in rock

GYG

Guzman Gomez loses steam as YTD returns -30%; short sellers back

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 016 – FY25 ended up not so bad... but Trump unpause is coming

First 8 Last

SPONSORED BY