TN/ Fed Government

[pop pop]

Can't believe we have legislators passing resolutions to not follow/violate the law like they did in Nashville the other night. They don't want the attorney general "Funk", or the Police to arrest or prosecute those who break the abortion law. A T Funk is in agreement with them and said he will not prosecute.

This country has really fallen from principals of right and wrong.  

I guess if you don't like a law, just don't pay any attention to it????? Sad thing is who gets to decide what laws we go by! Really bad trail this country, and our state, is walking on. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GlockSpock]

This seems to be on to of the wall between politics/no politics.

That said, isn't this the same thing as the "2nd Amendment Sanctuary States"?

[Alleycat72]

People follow the laws they agree with and disregard the ones they don't. Doesn't matter what your political affiliation is.  

[Omega]

1 hour ago, GlockSpock said:

This seems to be on to of the wall between politics/no politics.

That said, isn't this the same thing as the "2nd Amendment Sanctuary States"?

Not in my eyes, there is a difference between protecting the Constitution and protecting criminal actions.  More like illegal immigrant sanctuary states.

 

[Grayfox54]

This is the hot topic right now. Politicians are scrambling and trying to please both sides. Don't expect anything to actually happen.  

[GlockSpock]

29 minutes ago, Omega said:

Not in my eyes, there is a difference between protecting the Constitution and protecting criminal actions.  More like illegal immigrant sanctuary states.

 

Sure, but some people don't believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual right to own modern sporting weapons. Generally speaking, most people on TGO believe it does but that does not mean everyone in the country agrees.

Some people believe that the right to abortion is protected by the Constition. The United States Supreme Court agreed with this position in 1973 and was the status quo all the way up unto this year.

[GlockSpock]

Also, please note, since this involves Tennessee I'm vaguely open to allowing discussion (another mod may disagree entirely and axe the thread) but keep it civil. This is the only warning.

[gregintenn]

Why shouldn’t the federal government enforce federal law, the state enforce state law, county enforce county law, city, etc.?

[Chucktshoes]

53 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Also, please note, since this involves Tennessee I'm vaguely open to allowing discussion (another mod may disagree entirely and axe the thread) but keep it civil. This is the only warning.

This one is all you.

[7thinning]

Guess we really shouldn't be surprised at selectively "ignoring/supporting" certain laws.   Bunch of us tend to get upset when "changes" don't go along with what we support.  Maybe we should really be upset when there are break downs in order of rule of law .  I remember some really good conversations years ago when Colorado became the 1st state to legalize marijuana although that violated federal law.  Most that supported legalization were not upset, most that did not support thought it was horrible.  Many states have followed that same mindset and that ideology has filtered down from state to local in many situations.

 

[Omega]

45 minutes ago, 7thinning said:

Guess we really shouldn't be surprised at selectively "ignoring/supporting" certain laws.   Bunch of us tend to get upset when "changes" don't go along with what we support.  Maybe we should really be upset when there are break downs in order of rule of law .  I remember some really good conversations years ago when Colorado became the 1st state to legalize marijuana although that violated federal law.  Most that supported legalization were not upset, most that did not support thought it was horrible.  Many states have followed that same mindset and that ideology has filtered down from state to local in many situations.

 

That isn't quite the same, I am ok with a state telling the feds to pound sand within their borders, but having a legislative body in your state being selective on what state law they will enforce, for political reasons, should be a giant red flag to all of us.  If TN were to pass a law I could not live with, I would fight to get it changed, or move.  I don't like sanctuary cities/states for illegal immigrants, but feel the same way about those, for those who undoubtedly will accuse me of only supporting conservative laws.

[Omega]

2 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

Sure, but some people don't believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual right to own modern sporting weapons. Generally speaking, most people on TGO believe it does but that does not mean everyone in the country agrees.

Some people believe that the right to abortion is protected by the Constition. The United States Supreme Court agreed with this position in 1973 and was the status quo all the way up unto this year.

I believe the 2nd is written well enough to defend it's meaning at every turn.  Abortion rights argument, as seen during Rowe v Wade were very hard to agree with constitutionally, at least in the manner for which the decision was written.  Who knows, maybe down the road a case will reach SCOTUS and a more constitutionally correct argument can be made to support it again.  The same for the GCA, the argument was very bad for the pro side, so we lost, if a much better argument can be presented in a future case, maybe we can get rid of that too, but until then, it is the law of the land and expect them to enforce it.

[GlockSpock]

46 minutes ago, Omega said:

I believe the 2nd is written well enough to defend it's meaning at every turn.  Abortion rights argument, as seen during Rowe v Wade were very hard to agree with constitutionally, at least in the manner for which the decision was written.  Who knows, maybe down the road a case will reach SCOTUS and a more constitutionally correct argument can be made to support it again.  The same for the GCA, the argument was very bad for the pro side, so we lost, if a much better argument can be presented in a future case, maybe we can get rid of that too, but until then, it is the law of the land and expect them to enforce it.

Addressing the emboldened section in your reply above, you think that...and I happen to agree with you...but there are plenty of people that disagree with us. A lot of people sincerely believe that modern weapons are too dangerous (compared to muskets) and that the founding fathers would agree.

I'm just trying to point out that there are many issues that are exactly the same. For you and I it is as clear as water, others see it as mud.

[Omega]

18 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Addressing the emboldened section in your reply above, you think that...and I happen to agree with you...but there are plenty of people that disagree with us. A lot of people sincerely believe that modern weapons are too dangerous (compared to muskets) and that the founding fathers would agree.

I'm just trying to point out that there are many issues that are exactly the same. For you and I it is as clear as water, others see it as mud.

Yea well, there are those that think the earth is flat so...

[E4 No More]

18 minutes ago, Omega said:

Yea well, there are those that think the earth is flat so...

Earth's NOT flat!!?? The hell you say!

[gregintenn]

6 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

This seems to be on to of the wall between politics/no politics.

That said, isn't this the same thing as the "2nd Amendment Sanctuary States"?

Sort of, but this one is up to the Governor to do something about. State law; state should enforce it….I think.

[btq96r]

The state likely should be taking the lead on these kinds of cases, but they can very logically be done at a county level as well.  Where Funk may have made an error was going for the PR win with what he said.  He would have a lot of cover if he said something akin to he would consider any legal action available, but as a DA, he has to prioritize based on how he assesses the best use of resources in serving the community.  That would be a read between the lines way to signal that he wasn't going to push an abortion prosecution, but plausible enough since Metro Nashville has way bigger fish to fry in the courts given the crime.  That kind of discretion is easy to second guess, but the authority for it is clear.

This is a self-correcting issue if the political will exists, however.  District Attorney's who are elected can be recalled (if the mechanism exists), and lose their next election.  In this case, Funk is very likely aligned with the majority of voters who have him on their ballots, so in this example, the political will is absent.  But recourse being in and through the people is a lot better than the alternatives.

The state can leverage resources to prompt action as well.  I'm sure there is some grant money, or something that can be taken off the table if they tweak the laws that authorize it enough.  But that would mean the state legislature would want the fight.  They always seem more interested in early adjournments than principled stands like that, so don't get your hopes up.

[No_0ne]

9 hours ago, btq96r said:

The state likely should be taking the lead on these kinds of cases, but they can very logically be done at a county level as well.  Where Funk may have made an error was going for the PR win with what he said.  He would have a lot of cover if he said something akin to he would consider any legal action available, but as a DA, he has to prioritize based on how he assesses the best use of resources in serving the community.  That would be a read between the lines way to signal that he wasn't going to push an abortion prosecution, but plausible enough since Metro Nashville has way bigger fish to fry in the courts given the crime.  That kind of discretion is easy to second guess, but the authority for it is clear.

This is a self-correcting issue if the political will exists, however.  District Attorney's who are elected can be recalled (if the mechanism exists), and lose their next election.  In this case, Funk is very likely aligned with the majority of voters who have him on their ballots, so in this example, the political will is absent.  But recourse being in and through the people is a lot better than the alternatives.

The state can leverage resources to prompt action as well.  I'm sure there is some grant money, or something that can be taken off the table if they tweak the laws that authorize it enough.  But that would mean the state legislature would want the fight.  They always seem more interested in early adjournments than principled stands like that, so don't get your hopes up.

In many cases, regardless of what side of the aisle a policritter happens to sit on, abortion is a loser of an issue and most want to avoid it at all costs. As with many of the "hot button" issues, it's much better (from an election standpoint) to be able to rail against laws you know are unlikely to ever get changed than to actually have to make decisions regarding enforcement or other actions relevant to the issue at hand.  It's also a lot easier to raise money by opposing positions your constituency  finds objectionable than by defending laws they agree with ...

[Erich]

22 hours ago, 7thinning said:

Most that supported legalization were not upset, most that did not support thought it was horrible.  Many states have followed that same mindset and that ideology has filtered down from state to local in many situations.

The subsequent state’s mind set was primarily influenced by seeing the adopters tax revenue income. Cold hard cash has a way of making positions a bit more fluid. 

 

 

 

[deerslayer]

I haven’t researched it and don’t really feel like it, but what are the current rules/laws for abortion in TN?  I’ve always been surprised either side blows so much political capital on the issue.  To me, why someone gets an abortion is not nearly as important as when they do.  Does TN have a time limit?

Edited July 8, 2022 by deerslayer

[E4 No More]

10 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I haven’t researched it and don’t really feel like it, but what are the current rules/laws for abortion in TN?  I’ve always been surprised either side blows so much political capital on the issue.  To me, why someone gets an abortion is not nearly as important as when they do.  Have an abortion at six weeks and remove a glob of cells that only a biologist would recognize as possibly being human?  Carry on.  Have an abortion at seven months?  Go to prison for murder.  Does TN have a time limit?

I would not refer to this as just a clump of cells.

[Erik88]

26 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I haven’t researched it and don’t really feel like it, but what are the current rules/laws for abortion in TN?  I’ve always been surprised either side blows so much political capital on the issue.  To me, why someone gets an abortion is not nearly as important as when they do.  Does TN have a time limit?

My understanding is that the only abortions allowed now in TN are for medical reasons such as a ectopic pregnancy. There are no exceptions for rape or incest which are main sticking points for a lot of people. 

[deerslayer]

15 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

I would not refer to this as just a clump of cells.

Ok five weeks lol.  I deleted that part before you replied because someone may have felt that I crossed the political line and I didn’t want to get the thread closed.  You may want to do the same.  

[Erich]

Folks have already put forth their subjective opinion. The line is in the rear view 

[E4 No More]

38 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

My understanding is that the only abortions allowed now in TN are for medical reasons such as a ectopic pregnancy. There are no exceptions for rape or incest which are main sticking points for a lot of people. 

I firmly believe that forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape or incest is cruel and unusual punishment for something they didn't want. I also believe that if a woman is going for that exception then they must file a complaint against the man. That way they can't simply claim something to get an abortion.