Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Texas Abortion Case May Impact Anti-Dredging Laws


Recommended Posts

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The resulting opinion could impact the ability of states to restrict suction dredging. In Texas the state enacted various laws that allegedly were intended to restrict a constitutional right (abortion), thus setting up a judicial reexamination of the standards employed to determine the extent to which a state can craft laws to restrict a federal constitutional right. Dredging, of course, is a federal right albeit not an express constitutional right. However, citizens have a constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law. A decision in Hellerstedt should be filed around June 2016, but with only eight justices participating a definitive opinion may not result. Just want to give a head's up regarding the potential relevance of this case to protection of our federal mining rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we could also impact many state Mary Jane laws. Seeing as Marijuana Possession and use it is still a FEDERAL offense, if Federal law trumps State law, all the New legalization laws might be endangered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Well I'll be...  With only 8 sitting justices the Supremes none-the-less mustered a 5-3 opinion striking down the Texas laws in Hellerstedt that created "undue" roadblocks that interfered with the exercise of a constitutional right.  This development raises a possible new argument in the dredge cases: Has California unduly interfered with the exercise of a federal right via a denial of due process argument by creating laws and regulations that are virtually impossible to meet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith Walker, 1 of the SB Court case 8 is working on this aspect of 120 now for when SB reconvenes it's ALL OR NUTTN'- thanx much for post-John

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Micro Nugget said:

Well I'll be...  With only 8 sitting justices the Supremes none-the-less mustered a 5-3 opinion striking down the Texas laws in Hellerstedt that created "undue" roadblocks that interfered with the exercise of a constitutional right.  This development raises a possible new argument in the dredge cases: Has California unduly interfered with the exercise of a federal right via a denial of due process argument by creating laws and regulations that are virtually impossible to meet?

To answer your question,
I would say that the answer to that is a resounding "YES"!!!!!  :yesss:
That is just my opinion, though,     ..... and I am aware that opinions are like other parts of the anatomy, Ha!

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ochoa is waiting on the Rinehart decision from the Supreme Court as he was the Judge who ruled in favor of federal preemption over states insanity. Yes they can over rule his decision so he has to base his on theirs--which also hinged on the Oregon FP case that was LOST horrendously....games games games over a right they never had the color of law to deny in the first place sic sic sic...:2mo5pow: John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...