del
10-19-2016, 03:16 PM
i know that in kansas they have an ongoing experiment to bring the state back to the good old days, but when the solicitor-general cites the dred scott decision as one of the reasons that the state government should have a say in what the ladies do with their lady parts, it may be time to think it over.
In 2015, Kansas passed SB95 (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/sb95_enrolled.pdf), a stringent law banning the method of abortion most commonly used after the first trimester. Following an inevitable lawsuit, the Kansas Court of Appeals concluded (https://rewire.news/article/2016/01/22/appeals-court-kansas-constitution-protects-right-abortion/) that the Kansas Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy and invalidated the law. Now the state is appealing that decision to the Kansas Supreme Court—and its solicitor general is defending the law (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/Hodes-Nauser-III-KSC-Response-Brief-to-ACLU-amicus-10-18-final.pdf) by approvingly citing Dred Scott v. Sandford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford).
(http://www.slate.com/authors.mark_stern.html)
(http://www.slate.com/authors.mark_stern.html)A little background: Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution guarantees that “all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This language is drawn directly from the Declaration of Independence—much like Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to an abortion. An amicus brief (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Hodes_Nauser_v_Schmidt_Amicus_Final.pdf) by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the Constitutional Accountability Center argues that because the 14th Amendment guarantees abortion rights, the Kansas Constitution must, as well. As the brief explains:
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to incorporate the promises contained in the Declaration of Independence and guarantee the full scope of substantive fundamental rights and equality in line with the Declaration’s promise. Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution, which was also adopted to guarantee the Declaration’s promises to the people of Kansas and even used the same language contained in the Declaration, should be interpreted to provide protection for substantive fundamental rights that is at least as strong as that provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And those rights include protection against a law that “substantially burdens a woman’s right to enjoy personal autonomy and bodily integrity.” In other words, a law like SB95.
But Kansas disagrees. In his brief (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/Hodes-Nauser-III-KSC-Response-Brief-to-ACLU-amicus-10-18-final.pdf), Solicitor General Stephen R. McAllister insists that this argument is flawed because “[c]ourts across the country have recognized that ‘[t]he Declaration of Independence is a statement of ideals, not law.’ ” Thus, the Kansas Constitution’s adoption of the declaration’s language provides no fundamental rights to Kansas residents—certainly not the right to an abortion. To support this proposition, McAllister cites, among other cases, Dred Scott, explaining that the decision described “the Declaration’s description of unalienable rights as merely ‘general words used in that memorable instrument’ and [held] that the Declaration did not have a legally binding effect.”
dred scott? dredd fucking scott?!?
link to article and brief below
i'll eagerly await responses from the usual suspects
dred scott
damn
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/19/kansas_cites_dred_scott_to_explain_why_it_can_ban_ abortion.html
http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/Hodes-Nauser-III-KSC-Response-Brief-to-ACLU-amicus-10-18-final.pdf
In 2015, Kansas passed SB95 (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/sb95_enrolled.pdf), a stringent law banning the method of abortion most commonly used after the first trimester. Following an inevitable lawsuit, the Kansas Court of Appeals concluded (https://rewire.news/article/2016/01/22/appeals-court-kansas-constitution-protects-right-abortion/) that the Kansas Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy and invalidated the law. Now the state is appealing that decision to the Kansas Supreme Court—and its solicitor general is defending the law (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/Hodes-Nauser-III-KSC-Response-Brief-to-ACLU-amicus-10-18-final.pdf) by approvingly citing Dred Scott v. Sandford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford).
(http://www.slate.com/authors.mark_stern.html)
(http://www.slate.com/authors.mark_stern.html)A little background: Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution guarantees that “all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This language is drawn directly from the Declaration of Independence—much like Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to an abortion. An amicus brief (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Hodes_Nauser_v_Schmidt_Amicus_Final.pdf) by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the Constitutional Accountability Center argues that because the 14th Amendment guarantees abortion rights, the Kansas Constitution must, as well. As the brief explains:
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to incorporate the promises contained in the Declaration of Independence and guarantee the full scope of substantive fundamental rights and equality in line with the Declaration’s promise. Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution, which was also adopted to guarantee the Declaration’s promises to the people of Kansas and even used the same language contained in the Declaration, should be interpreted to provide protection for substantive fundamental rights that is at least as strong as that provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And those rights include protection against a law that “substantially burdens a woman’s right to enjoy personal autonomy and bodily integrity.” In other words, a law like SB95.
But Kansas disagrees. In his brief (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/Hodes-Nauser-III-KSC-Response-Brief-to-ACLU-amicus-10-18-final.pdf), Solicitor General Stephen R. McAllister insists that this argument is flawed because “[c]ourts across the country have recognized that ‘[t]he Declaration of Independence is a statement of ideals, not law.’ ” Thus, the Kansas Constitution’s adoption of the declaration’s language provides no fundamental rights to Kansas residents—certainly not the right to an abortion. To support this proposition, McAllister cites, among other cases, Dred Scott, explaining that the decision described “the Declaration’s description of unalienable rights as merely ‘general words used in that memorable instrument’ and [held] that the Declaration did not have a legally binding effect.”
dred scott? dredd fucking scott?!?
link to article and brief below
i'll eagerly await responses from the usual suspects
dred scott
damn
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/19/kansas_cites_dred_scott_to_explain_why_it_can_ban_ abortion.html
http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/Hodes-Nauser-III-KSC-Response-Brief-to-ACLU-amicus-10-18-final.pdf