"inJohn Roberts' America....."

[Earl Maltz]

At 10:03 AM 7/22/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58ECF.05DD4ACC"
>
>Sorry to distract from the thread, but I was curious about the "crass 
>political reasons" for overturning Roe.  I'm familiar with the view that 
>Roe was a huge political mistake -- in 1973.  I'm not sure if follows that 
>overturning it is political wisdom in 2005.  Also, does it matter how it 
>is overturned?  By the court's majority vote?  By a unanimous vote?  By 
>constitutional amendment?  I'm focusing only on the "crass political reasons."
>
>
>----------
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Marty Lederman
>Sent: Fri 7/22/2005 10:58 AM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; Sanford Levinson
>Subject: Re: "inJohn Roberts' America....."
>
>Seth Kreimer has written several excellent articles on precisely this 
>question.  Highly recommended.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>Sanford Levinson
>To: <mailto:conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:46 AM
>Subject: "inJohn Roberts' America....."
>
>Assume that Roe is overruled (with the presumed support of 
>Roberts).  Given that I support the overruling of Roe for crass political 
>reasons, I am not disturbed by the possibility that Roberts would overrule 
>it.  My genuine (i.e., non-rhetorical) question is the following:
>
>Assuming that Roe is overruled, which would presumably allow a state to 
>criminalize abortion, could the same state criminalize one of its citizens 
>travelling to another state to get an abortion?  My immediate response is 
>no, that that would be protected by the "right to travel."  But, of 
>course, the US claims the right to criminalize US citizens travelling to 
>Thailand to engage in sex with children, and there is universal 
>jurisdiction to try pirates and torturers.  And what if Congress 
>"authorized" states to engage in such extra-territorial jurisdiction?
>
>Another possibility, of course, is that Congress would criminalize 
>abortion because, after all, it is part of the economy and, surely, the 
>medical instruments have travelled in interstate commerce.  If Roe is 
>overruled, would anyone, liberal or conservative, doubt Congress's power 
>to do that under current doctrine?  (For what it is worth, I am altogether 
>confident that no such legislation could get through Congress, unlike the 
>extraterritorial bills mentioned above, which simply have to get through a 
>state legislature.)
>
>sandy
>
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.