Federal Judge: Congress’s Law Against Female Genital Mutilation Is Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Space_Time, Nov 26, 2018.

  1. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    5,483
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Should federalism have prevented this? Will each state have to make it illegal? Will those who want to practice it move to states that don't criminalize it?

     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
  2. Sahba*

    Sahba* Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Female
    Move back to the barbarous, hegemonically regressive enclaves of Sharia that still condone this sadistic atrocity. Remind those that condone this behavior that it bespeaks the man's twisted & gratuitous fixation on simulating the tight anal rectum of young boys being raped (as they themselves once likely were). There is nothing redeeming, hygienic, culturally / religiously / societally justifiable about this gross atrocity of human rights. It is tantamount to Silence of the Lambs evil incarnate but glossed over under the guise of 'religious freedom'. I would venture to say that even the Old Testament, punitive stoning is fundamentally more "progressive" and religiously tenable than the sadistic, gratuitously sexual perversion behind FGM! (not that I hold strong opinions on the matter)...
     
    kazenatsu likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can guarantee you every single state in the country would make it illegal. If they get around to doing something about it and the vote ever comes to the floor.

    The judge does have a valid point about federalism.

    It's despicable and definitely should be illegal, but criminalizing it at the federal level may not be the constitutionally appropriate way to deal with it. (Then again, how many times has the federal government let the Constitution stop them before when it came to other things?)

    This does of course raise potential questions and leave the door open for other issues, but this thread is specifically about Female Genital Mutilation so we'll leave the issue at that. (Unless someone wanted to start a separate thread about the Constitutional implications, hypotheticals, and how such implications would be resolved)

    While you've pointed out a hypothetical, the bigger issue might be how to deal with immigrant parents who take their daughter on "a little vacation" back to their home country and have it done there.
    This is actually the most common way that girls who were born in the U.S. and are U.S. citizens get genitally mutilated.

    I think the most appropriate answer under the Constitution might be that each state maintains a level of jurisdiction over its residents, including children, and this jurisdiction doesn't completely go away just because the child happens to be in another state, or even another country.

    You can find many court precedents about this type of extraterritorial state jurisdiction going back to slavery. (Just because slavery is now illegal doesn't mean those precedents concerning jurisdiction are not still valid)

    Any child born (or conceived) would automatically be considered a resident of the state, and could be under the protective legal jurisdiction of the state even while not being in the state (in certain ways, with the approval of the federal government) until reaching adulthood.
    We would likely have to bring out some Constitutional scholars to flesh out all the details.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  4. TexMexChef

    TexMexChef Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    495
    Trophy Points:
    83

    In the US, there is a hierarchy of laws. States have a right to regulate all forms of non-consensual genitalia mutilation as a state crime...there also is nothing the restricts the US Congress from doing likewise.
     
  5. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    23,965
    Likes Received:
    4,866
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I shouldn't really, given the subject matter, but . . . :roflol:
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's nothing really that enables them, not really a legal basis, unless there's a demand by one state to extradite someone who has transgressed their laws and fell within the state's jurisdiction.

    Your comment is based on ignorance about the Constitution.

    Also the Fourteenth Amendment really opened up federal powers, so maybe there's something they could use there.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  7. TexMexChef

    TexMexChef Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    495
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think you are not correct in your assessment.

    The judge did not argue that the US federal law banning FGM is a unconstitutional law...

    The Judge was arguing that the bans should have originated in the states..and not the Congress.

    This is only the Judge's opinion has no bearing on US federal law banning non-consensual mutilation of female genitalia.


    This is current US law and has been for 22 years.

    18 U.S. Code § 116.Female genital mutilation

    (a)
    Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

    (b)A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is—

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/116
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  8. TexMexChef

    TexMexChef Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    495
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Sure there is. The US Constitution gives the Congress the right to write laws.
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your ignorance is astounding.
    Yeah sure, they can write whatever laws they want. That doesn't mean those laws are constitutional.
    Just because there's nothing prohibiting it doesn't mean it's constitutional for them to write/enforce those laws. That's not how the Constitution (at the federal level) works.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  10. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    23,965
    Likes Received:
    4,866
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OP

    Why should FGM be proscribed when male mutilation remains legal? 'Double standards' or what?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  11. Sahba*

    Sahba* Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Female
    When they start sewing up the foreskin of teen boys to the point that the head can't protrude from its 'sheath' get back to us... It's the sewing up of the labia that is the most deleterious & infection inducing; not the cutting. U do know that FGM is not done in infancy but later on in the adolescent & teenage years (usually). Get back to us when you have a clue... Actually it might be more apt to compare it to sewing up the anal sphincter muscles of teenage males and then being raped repeatedly for the rest of their life, causing perpetual tearing / healing with ea. session of intercourse (I hate being graphic but this is inherently evil stuff).
     
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not that that's not terrible but I'm going to have to disagree with you. The most deleterious aspect of it of it all (and there's a lot of deleterious aspects) is the cutting off of the clitoris.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  13. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    23,965
    Likes Received:
    4,866
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTF! Male and female genital mutilation is the ultimate form of child abuse was the point I was making, and at whatever age the ritual is executed. Don't be sarcastic or a smart-ass with me Missus because I assure you that you'll come off the worst. 'Get back to us when you have a clue'?? Such breathtaking egotism!
     

Share This Page