I find myself in the unpleasant position of having to agree with a Federal Court Judge who overturned a Federal law that makes genital mutilation of females unconstitutional. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a horrific practice employed by some members of the Muslim faith. Congress passed a law making this a crime and a Judge in Detroit ruled that law unconstitutional and, based on a very limited review of the case, I agree with his reasoning. This may be a good decision made in a bad situation.
The situation was that a doctor in Michigan was arrested and charged with violating a Federal law that prohibits performing genital mutilation on young girls. For the record, the attorney for the doctor is quoted as saying the physician did not do this. But the issue at hand is whether the Federal law is Constitutional.
Here is the test for Conservatives - just because something is horrible does that give the Federal Government the right to regulate it?
Let's look at the quotes from the Judge's decision:
He describes female genital mutilation as a despicable practice. Okay, I agree 100%.
The Judge then sided with the Defense in saying female genital mutilation "... is essentially a criminal assault. ... FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The commerce clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature."
On the surface, I have to agree with the Judge. He is saying he listened to the Government's arguments* and found no "demonstrated effect on interstate commerce." If that is true, then I agree with him. The Interstate Commerce clause has been stretched beyond belief by the Federal Government to justify a lot of regulation of everyday activity. But it cannot be stretched to say the Federal Government can regulate one person beating up another person (e.g. criminal assault, which is the crime the Judge says was committed).
The key words of course are "if that is true." The Federal Government has argued that there are Interstate Commerce effects and may appeal.
Female genital mutilation is indeed a horrible practice, there is no question. But I have to question Conservatives like Ann Coulter and Dan Horowitz (Editor of Conservative Review) condemning this ruling without any consideration of the Judge's opinion. Where are your principles? Are you for limited Constitutional Government or not?
Dan Horowitz wrote on Twitter - "Congress can regulate every aspect of our life but it can't regulate FGM." So Dan, are you saying Congress should be able to regulate every aspect of our life? Or are you saying that the only aspect of our lives that Congress should be able to regulate are the ones you want them to be able to regulate?
Why aren't Ann Coulter and Dan Horowitz and others saying we'd like to see more judges throwing out Federal laws that overreach Constitutional authority like this one did? Why aren't they using this as a seminal event and calling on the 13 States who should be banning this practice but have not to immediately pass laws to do so.
It's situations like this that make me just as frustrated with defining whether someone is a conservatives or a liberal. Give me a definition that I can use that applies consistently. Are we conservatives for a limited Federal Government or not?
* The one newspaper article I had available when typing this, listed only one set of facts offered by the Federal Government in justification of this being interstate commerce. The prosecution named 9 children who suffered this procedure. They argued that some of these kids were brought by their parents from States other than Michigan (i.e. crossed state lines). There could be more facts than that or that one could be more persuasive than it was presented in the paper.
We will see whether the Federal government appeals and, if so, whether the facts presented on appeal lead appellate courts to overturn this decision.
The situation was that a doctor in Michigan was arrested and charged with violating a Federal law that prohibits performing genital mutilation on young girls. For the record, the attorney for the doctor is quoted as saying the physician did not do this. But the issue at hand is whether the Federal law is Constitutional.
Here is the test for Conservatives - just because something is horrible does that give the Federal Government the right to regulate it?
Let's look at the quotes from the Judge's decision:
He describes female genital mutilation as a despicable practice. Okay, I agree 100%.
The Judge then sided with the Defense in saying female genital mutilation "... is essentially a criminal assault. ... FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The commerce clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature."
On the surface, I have to agree with the Judge. He is saying he listened to the Government's arguments* and found no "demonstrated effect on interstate commerce." If that is true, then I agree with him. The Interstate Commerce clause has been stretched beyond belief by the Federal Government to justify a lot of regulation of everyday activity. But it cannot be stretched to say the Federal Government can regulate one person beating up another person (e.g. criminal assault, which is the crime the Judge says was committed).
The key words of course are "if that is true." The Federal Government has argued that there are Interstate Commerce effects and may appeal.
Female genital mutilation is indeed a horrible practice, there is no question. But I have to question Conservatives like Ann Coulter and Dan Horowitz (Editor of Conservative Review) condemning this ruling without any consideration of the Judge's opinion. Where are your principles? Are you for limited Constitutional Government or not?
Dan Horowitz wrote on Twitter - "Congress can regulate every aspect of our life but it can't regulate FGM." So Dan, are you saying Congress should be able to regulate every aspect of our life? Or are you saying that the only aspect of our lives that Congress should be able to regulate are the ones you want them to be able to regulate?
Why aren't Ann Coulter and Dan Horowitz and others saying we'd like to see more judges throwing out Federal laws that overreach Constitutional authority like this one did? Why aren't they using this as a seminal event and calling on the 13 States who should be banning this practice but have not to immediately pass laws to do so.
It's situations like this that make me just as frustrated with defining whether someone is a conservatives or a liberal. Give me a definition that I can use that applies consistently. Are we conservatives for a limited Federal Government or not?
* The one newspaper article I had available when typing this, listed only one set of facts offered by the Federal Government in justification of this being interstate commerce. The prosecution named 9 children who suffered this procedure. They argued that some of these kids were brought by their parents from States other than Michigan (i.e. crossed state lines). There could be more facts than that or that one could be more persuasive than it was presented in the paper.
We will see whether the Federal government appeals and, if so, whether the facts presented on appeal lead appellate courts to overturn this decision.
Comments