The Texas legislature and five Supreme Court justices have joined forces to eviscerate women’s abortion rights — the legislature by creating and the justices by leaving in place a system of private bounties designed to intimidate all who would help women exercise the right to choose. But the federal government has — and should use — its own powers, including criminal prosecution, to prevent the law from being enforced and to reduce its chilling effects.
Of course, the best approach would be for Congress to codify the right to abortion in federal law, although Democrats likely lack the votes to make that happen — and there is a risk that this conservative Supreme Court would find that such a statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
But as President Biden calls for a “whole of government” response to the fact that thousands of women in Texas — and no doubt soon elsewhere — are being denied their constitutional rights, there are other solutions that already exist in federal law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.
The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?
The Texas legislature and five Supreme Court justices have joined forces to eviscerate women’s abortion rights — the legislature by creating and the justices by leaving in place a system of private bounties designed to intimidate all who would help women exercise the right to choose. But the federal government has — and should use — its own powers, including criminal prosecution, to prevent the law from being enforced and to reduce its chilling effects.
There are NO Constitutional rights other than property rights and civic rights. Both of which are actually a subterfuge for oblidations. Governmental entities, which claimed ownership of real estate by molitary force, then distributed land (land grants) to people who were expected to take good care of it and make it productive. "Equal rights" is a scam when no rights are recognized. The U.S. legal systen does not recognize personal rights. That is why the U.S., alone among nations, has not signed on to the UN Declration on the Rights of the Child. Women claiming a right to determine the existence of a fetus because they own the ovom are presumed to be in a contest with a male who claims an interest in the sperm. The "disinterested" parties really have no standing in a civil court. Of course, that is not something that will stop a legislature from passing unenforceable laws. I mean, Congress got away with the un-Constitutional McCain/Feingold for more than a decade. Corporations. which are subsidiaries of states, can be governed by regulations. Natural persons are subject to only one law--not to injure another. Medical clinits are vulnerable because they are corporations and have accepted licenses (protection) from the state.
Of course, the best approach would be for Congress to codify the right to abortion in federal law, although Democrats likely lack the votes to make that happen — and there is a risk that this conservative Supreme Court would find that such a statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
But as President Biden calls for a “whole of government” response to the fact that thousands of women in Texas — and no doubt soon elsewhere — are being denied their constitutional rights, there are other solutions that already exist in federal law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.
The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?
For example, Section 242 of the federal criminal code makes it a crime for those who, “under color of law,” willfully deprive individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
This statute — originally designed to go after the Ku Klux Klan — fits the Texas situation perfectly: The bounty seekers, entitled under the Texas law to collect penalties of at least $10,000, have been made, in effect, private attorneys general of Texas. They act “under color of state law,” and unless and until Roe v. Wade is overruled, they unmistakably intend to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right.
In addition, Section 241 of the federal criminal code makes it an even more serious crime for “two or more persons” to agree to “oppress, threaten, or intimidate” anyone “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.” This crime may be committed even by individuals not found to be acting “under color of law” but as purely private vigilantes, as long as they’re acting in concert with others.
Again, the Texas scheme could hardly be more perfectly designed to match the language of that section. The whole point of the Texas law, after all, is to intimidate abortion providers and others by threatening them with penalties of at least $10,000, plus legal fees, in the form of bounties to be paid to the vigilante. Even jurists who believe the Constitution does not protect abortion rights might be given pause by this seizure of private property, with unlimited penalties not tied to any actual harm suffered by the bounty hunter.
It would be particularly fitting — in tune not just with the letter but the spirit of the law — to use the Ku Klux Klan Act in this way. After all, the statute was enacted in 1871, in the aftermath of the Civil War, precisely to prevent Klansmen from lynching and other attacks on formerly enslaved Black citizens, including to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to vote. As the Klan rampaged in the former Confederacy, Southern states didn’t simply turn a blind eye to its vigilante justice but encouraged it.
In addition to these criminal provisions, there are civil actions available under federal law, including the ability to seek and obtain court orders to halt the illegal state scheme. The Justice Department can’t directly use the civil provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act; only the injured party can. But the All Writs Act, which permits federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions” could allow the department to go to court to seek an order blocking the Texas law from being enforced.
The Justice Department is understandably reluctant to announce particular investigations or prosecutions before pinning down more details than are yet available. But, at some point, the need to disarm those who cynically undermine constitutional rights while ducking all normal avenues for challenging their assault on the rule of law becomes paramount.
It hasn't been widely noted that there is in fact a temporary injunction in place blocking one specific group from suing Planned Parenthood. And I am no lawyer, but as best I can make out the Supreme Court has not ruled on the law but on a procedural motion.
It might serve state legislatures well if more of their members were lawyers and if said lawyers were actually familiar with federal law. Would serve their constituents pretty well also. :P
As for Texas, I recall reports of Texas defense attorneys sleeping during their clients' death penalty hearings. Haven't heard such stories lately, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen--it could just not be "news."
Haven't been posting because I don't want to bore everyone with endless repetition of "Feel terrible today. Hip hurting today." Really, I don't have anything else to say. But, Listener is right, as her e-mails remind me, that I do need to look in from time to time.
I cheered when I saw your post, Cat!!!!! I was getting ready to send Sheriff Chuck up from West Virginia to check on you!! ✨WELCOME BACK!✨ And please feel free to have a moan here any time. We much prefer you here, exactly as you are, than not have you among us!
Were you thinking of your response to Cat? She posted duplicated messages and you and I responded to the second. That message has now disappeared along with our replies.
Fresno breaks record for most 100-degree days in a year. When will it cool off? Fresno beat the record with 64 days of 100 degrees or more. (I had been thinking it seemed it might be that way; today is still pretty hot.)
California’s lucrative almond orchards face a reckoning with drought, climate change (That’s been predicted for a long time. A considerable part of the problems is rich companies from outside the area bidding up and buying up more and more and more of the land, particularly almond orchards. They have also converted huge amounts of land that was never more than pasture or row crops into almond and pistachio orchards.
I suppose that when rising sea levels convert the California's Central Valley into the Central Seaway, such commerce as remains will be carried on by ships rather than trucks. Hey--we can change it into the world's biggest fish farm!
It ain't Phoenix by a long shot. Overdraft of groundwater is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Between that and the inexorable progress of mechanized agriculture lots of small towns are on the verge of disappearance--like many before them.
How to Deradicalize Your Town [Click] “While hundreds of men in surrounding towns were leaving Belgium to fight for ISIS in Syria, this town didn’t lose one young person. Here’s why.”
Gee— cowbrushes! [Click] Off topic, granted.
ReplyDeleteBrushing makes for happy cats too.
DeletePanjshir is falling.
ReplyDeleteIt makes my heart ache.
https://apnews.com/article/taliban-01ff767e3bfc7f4488dc8f73498337d2
That Chinese-funded highway being built through the valley decreases its defensibility.
DeleteLaurence Tribe: What the Justice Department should do to stop the Texas abortion law
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/05/justice-department-stop-texas-abortion-law-laurence-tribe/
The Texas legislature and five Supreme Court justices have joined forces to eviscerate women’s abortion rights — the legislature by creating and the justices by leaving in place a system of private bounties designed to intimidate all who would help women exercise the right to choose. But the federal government has — and should use — its own powers, including criminal prosecution, to prevent the law from being enforced and to reduce its chilling effects.
Of course, the best approach would be for Congress to codify the right to abortion in federal law, although Democrats likely lack the votes to make that happen — and there is a risk that this conservative Supreme Court would find that such a statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
But as President Biden calls for a “whole of government” response to the fact that thousands of women in Texas — and no doubt soon elsewhere — are being denied their constitutional rights, there are other solutions that already exist in federal law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.
The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?
The Texas legislature and five Supreme Court justices have joined forces to eviscerate women’s abortion rights — the legislature by creating and the justices by leaving in place a system of private bounties designed to intimidate all who would help women exercise the right to choose. But the federal government has — and should use — its own powers, including criminal prosecution, to prevent the law from being enforced and to reduce its chilling effects.
To be continued
There are NO Constitutional rights other than property rights and civic rights. Both of which are actually a subterfuge for oblidations. Governmental entities, which claimed ownership of real estate by molitary force, then distributed land (land grants) to people who were expected to take good care of it and make it productive.
Delete"Equal rights" is a scam when no rights are recognized. The U.S. legal systen does not recognize personal rights. That is why the U.S., alone among nations, has not signed on to the UN Declration on the Rights of the Child.
Women claiming a right to determine the existence of a fetus because they own the ovom are presumed to be in a contest with a male who claims an interest in the sperm.
The "disinterested" parties really have no standing in a civil court. Of course, that is not something that will stop a legislature from passing unenforceable laws. I mean, Congress got away with the un-Constitutional McCain/Feingold for more than a decade.
Corporations. which are subsidiaries of states, can be governed by regulations. Natural persons are subject to only one law--not to injure another.
Medical clinits are vulnerable because they are corporations and have accepted licenses (protection) from the state.
Tribe continued:
ReplyDeleteOf course, the best approach would be for Congress to codify the right to abortion in federal law, although Democrats likely lack the votes to make that happen — and there is a risk that this conservative Supreme Court would find that such a statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
But as President Biden calls for a “whole of government” response to the fact that thousands of women in Texas — and no doubt soon elsewhere — are being denied their constitutional rights, there are other solutions that already exist in federal law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.
The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?
For example, Section 242 of the federal criminal code makes it a crime for those who, “under color of law,” willfully deprive individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
This statute — originally designed to go after the Ku Klux Klan — fits the Texas situation perfectly: The bounty seekers, entitled under the Texas law to collect penalties of at least $10,000, have been made, in effect, private attorneys general of Texas. They act “under color of state law,” and unless and until Roe v. Wade is overruled, they unmistakably intend to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right.
In addition, Section 241 of the federal criminal code makes it an even more serious crime for “two or more persons” to agree to “oppress, threaten, or intimidate” anyone “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.” This crime may be committed even by individuals not found to be acting “under color of law” but as purely private vigilantes, as long as they’re acting in concert with others.
Again, the Texas scheme could hardly be more perfectly designed to match the language of that section. The whole point of the Texas law, after all, is to intimidate abortion providers and others by threatening them with penalties of at least $10,000, plus legal fees, in the form of bounties to be paid to the vigilante. Even jurists who believe the Constitution does not protect abortion rights might be given pause by this seizure of private property, with unlimited penalties not tied to any actual harm suffered by the bounty hunter.
Tribe concluded:
ReplyDeleteIt would be particularly fitting — in tune not just with the letter but the spirit of the law — to use the Ku Klux Klan Act in this way. After all, the statute was enacted in 1871, in the aftermath of the Civil War, precisely to prevent Klansmen from lynching and other attacks on formerly enslaved Black citizens, including to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to vote. As the Klan rampaged in the former Confederacy, Southern states didn’t simply turn a blind eye to its vigilante justice but encouraged it.
In addition to these criminal provisions, there are civil actions available under federal law, including the ability to seek and obtain court orders to halt the illegal state scheme. The Justice Department can’t directly use the civil provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act; only the injured party can. But the All Writs Act, which permits federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions” could allow the department to go to court to seek an order blocking the Texas law from being enforced.
The Justice Department is understandably reluctant to announce particular investigations or prosecutions before pinning down more details than are yet available. But, at some point, the need to disarm those who cynically undermine constitutional rights while ducking all normal avenues for challenging their assault on the rule of law becomes paramount.
We have arrived at that point.
I thought it allowable for once to post the entire column, with credits.
DeletePardon the duplication.
DeleteIt hasn't been widely noted that there is in fact a temporary injunction in place blocking one specific group from suing Planned Parenthood. And I am no lawyer, but as best I can make out the Supreme Court has not ruled on the law but on a procedural motion.
DeleteIt might serve state legislatures well if more of their members were lawyers and if said lawyers were actually familiar with federal law. Would serve their constituents pretty well also. :P
DeleteAs for Texas, I recall reports of Texas defense attorneys sleeping during their clients' death penalty hearings. Haven't heard such stories lately, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen--it could just not be "news."
DeleteHi guys,
ReplyDeleteHaven't been posting because I don't want to bore everyone with endless repetition of "Feel terrible today. Hip hurting today." Really, I don't have anything else to say. But, Listener is right, as her e-mails remind me, that I do need to look in from time to time.
Welcome, Cat; we had worried.
DeleteHope you haven't had any significant weather problems.
DeleteNo weather problems. We're pretty sheltered here in the Pioneer Valley, thankfully.
DeleteGood; on the big maps it looked like that big storm came awfully close, maybe even went right over you.
DeleteI cheered when I saw your post, Cat!!!!!
DeleteI was getting ready to send Sheriff Chuck up from West Virginia to check on you!!
✨WELCOME BACK!✨
And please feel free to have a moan here any time. We much prefer you here, exactly as you are, than not have you among us!
Hey! Why are my posts disappearing?
ReplyDeleteJust lucky, I guess.
DeleteWere you thinking of your response to Cat? She posted duplicated messages and you and I responded to the second. That message has now disappeared along with our replies.
DeleteThough I often clean up duplications, I didn't delete any posts at all today.
DeleteMarvels of modern technology. . .
DeleteA couple of headlines from the Fresno Bee:
ReplyDeleteFresno breaks record for most 100-degree days in a year. When will it cool off?
Fresno beat the record with 64 days of 100 degrees or more.
(I had been thinking it seemed it might be that way; today is still pretty hot.)
California’s lucrative almond orchards face a reckoning with drought, climate change
(That’s been predicted for a long time. A considerable part of the problems is rich companies from outside the area bidding up and buying up more and more and more of the land, particularly almond orchards. They have also converted huge amounts of land that was never more than pasture or row crops into almond and pistachio orchards.
I suppose that when rising sea levels convert the California's Central Valley into the Central Seaway, such commerce as remains will be carried on by ships rather than trucks. Hey--we can change it into the world's biggest fish farm!
DeleteThat is just too hot.
DeleteSo sad for California!
It ain't Phoenix by a long shot. Overdraft of groundwater is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Between that and the inexorable progress of mechanized agriculture lots of small towns are on the verge of disappearance--like many before them.
DeleteHow to Deradicalize Your Town [Click] “While hundreds of men in surrounding towns were leaving Belgium to fight for ISIS in Syria, this town didn’t lose one young person. Here’s why.”
ReplyDeleteStudy Suggests Dark Matter Could Form Some Craters on Earth [Click] Woo Hoo! Don’t try to catch a strangelet, folks. . .
ReplyDelete