5th amendment

[WETWRKS]

So...the 5th amendment says you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. You really cannot use it to refuse to answer questions about someone else's crime that you had no part in.

Colorado passed a pro-abortion law. Other states have passed anti-abortion laws that make it a crime to travel to Colorado to get an abortion. Colorado stated this:

"According to the order, the state will refuse to cooperate with any out-of-state civil or criminal investigations into legal health decisions in Colorado."

Um...if you or I were to refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation into someone else's crime we would be charged with interfering in an investigation.

[Great-Kazoo]

The hypocrisy of D's and the left when it comes to embracing the Constitution. A document they tout as not current, written by white slave owners and... a living document that's open to interpretation . Since 1/6 have wrapped them self in the flag and Constitution. Go figure.


The R's better not fuk up the nov elections. But they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of success, time & time again.

[def90]

Since when are you guilty of committing crimes of other states while not in that state?

Are you saying that because concealed carry is illegal in NY that you should be charged with a crime for carrying in Colorado?

[theGinsue]

I'm not for abortion, but...

For a state which forbids an activity to prohibit you from traveling to a place where said activity is legal, is an abuse of legislative authority and surely would not hold up in court.

As to the topic of this thread, the 5th Amendment is for individuals, not "state" entities. Governmental bodies have all sorts of protections from individuals and other governmental entities.

[WETWRKS]

Since when are you guilty of committing crimes of other states while not in that state?

Are you saying that because concealed carry is illegal in NY that you should be charged with a crime for carrying in Colorado?

Actually I don't believe they are going after there people for getting the abortion....I think they are going after them for the act of leaving...to get around the abortion ban. I would say it is closer to someone going into international water to murder someone. Is that person still dead when they return to the US...can they be investigated and charged...you bet. And your state can do so.

[Bailey Guns]

Colorado passed a pro-abortion law. Other states have passed anti-abortion laws that make it a crime to travel to Colorado to get an abortion.

What state(s)? I see there is a pending bill in Missouri (it makes it a civil penalty, not criminal) but everything I'm finding says this is not true that some states have banned travel to other states for an abortion. Can you provide some sort of reference to these laws that have been passed?

There's precedent both ways. But I don't see how an out-of-state "medical" provider could be compelled to cooperate with a civil investigation regarding someone who travelled out-of-state for a procedure.

I have read some clinics in Montana and perhaps other states have themselves put bans in place on providing services to out-of-state patients. But a private business can do that.

[DDT951]

I'm not for abortion, but...

For a state which forbids an activity to prohibit you from traveling to a place where said activity is legal, is an abuse of legislative authority and surely would not hold up in court.

As to the topic of this thread, the 5th Amendment is for individuals, not "state" entities. Governmental bodies have all sorts of protections from individuals and other governmental entities.

How do you feel about people being charged with crimes by the US Government for actions committed outside the USA which may not be illegal in the foreign country?

How do you feel about the USA having laws, and enforcing them, about US Citizens going to foreign countries to commit crimes in the USA and not necessarily illegal in foreign countries? An example is the USA charges people with crimes for going to foreign countries to engage in the use of (normally under 18) prostitutes?

Just a simple example of the USA charging people for traveling to commit what they USA see as a crime.

[def90]

How do you feel about people being charged with crimes by the US Government for actions committed outside the USA which may not be illegal in the foreign country?

How do you feel about the USA having laws, and enforcing them, about US Citizens going to foreign countries to commit crimes in the USA and not necessarily illegal in foreign countries? An example is the USA charges people with crimes for going to foreign countries to engage in the use of (normally under 18) prostitutes?

Just a simple example of the USA charging people for traveling to commit what they USA see as a crime.

Yeah that is a problem, however the underage prostitute thing I believe is an agreement or treaty between the two countries involved and not just the US randomly going after people in other countries

[DDT951]

Yeah that is a problem, however the underage prostitute thing I believe is an agreement or treaty between the two countries involved and not just the US randomly going after people in other countries

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceo...ation-children

“ Federal law provides “extraterritorial jurisdiction” over certain sex offenses against children. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is the legal authority of the United States to prosecute criminal conduct that took place outside its borders.”


I am not commenting on right or wrong or morality of the situation.

Just pointing out it seems legal to have “extraterritorial jurisdiction”.

If the feds can have it, why not the states?

[FoxtArt]

It's equally amusing both a ton of Liberal's sudden grasping for the constitution, as well as sudden concern for the surveillance state...

And a ton of Conservatives quick justification of overreach, and desire to abandon Federalism, and "get those people who do stuff in OTHER states" and overreach as quickly as they can.

It's a rare thing for people to have consistent mores and political standards these days.

What anyone embraces today will be what is used against themselves tomorrow. Most lack any sense of future consequences either way, though.

ETA: Also trying to justify, rationalize, and excuse - typical cognitive dissonance - it's why the constitution is little more than toilet paper today, because the judicial does the same thing. Either we stick to what it should be, or we can't bitch when it's entirely ignored and rationalized and stretched to their benefit tomorrow.