Well what did you expect? They just said it's LEGAL to FGM.

Oh.

It's 100% legal now, from the federal government.

Well, that's messed up.

no, they didn't @JustTom
they said ICC does not cover non-commercial events

No, I think the laws are being written to address any surgery that is not medically necessary except the removal of the foreskin of a male baby.

I mean that is kind of the issue once you can harm others with religious freedom as your defence it is scary.
Because genital mutilation is not nice regardless of gender.

which is a massive step in the right direction after Raich

The ruling says:
Federal government: "Not our problem, go cut her up all you want jackasses."
States: "OH FUCK, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? FUCK FUCK FUCK, PASS LAWS TO STOP THIS ASAP!"

That still seems to be inconsistent between genders.

Again, the point isn't that it should be legal. The point is that it is the states and not the federal gov't that has the authority to do it

You are not allowed to cut away any sort of skin if the infant is female.

With male infants it's still okay, apparently.

if you want FGM regulated at the federal level,
you need either a Constitutional Amendment or a treaty to stamp it out

damn I can actually go for all 3 days this year

I'm actually against male circumcision but it's up to each state to decide what they should consider acceptable

My son is not circumcised

Rip That is what happened to me

@Undead Mockingbird The point of the ruling was simply this: the federal government doesn't give a shit how badly you mutilate someone's pussy or dick, they threw their hands up and are now saying "Not our problem. You states gotta regulate it yourselves. PEACE OUT, WE'RE GOING TO SPACE-VEGAS AND GETTIN' US SOME HOOKERS!"

What was their exact reasoning?

Why the feds can't do it

No, the ruling is that the Constitution, the highest law of a land of laws, FORBIDS the federal government from making that law

Their reason is "Tenth Ammendment says so, lol."

What? That is ridiculous

Even the judge stated in his ruling an encouragement to states to do their fucking job for once.

Guess the federal agents can't arrest people for pot anymore. Since controlled substances are not in there either

Ah, yes.

What about pot lawS?

Unless you count that one amendment that was overturned

Yeah, apparently this ruling could spread.
It could easily use this ruling to say murder, rape, and any number of other things previously deemed crimes, are now federally legal and groups like the FBI are not allowed to arrest you for that shit anymore, because only the individual states can go after you.

It's dumb this judge should be disbarred

I think the feds are actually overstepping their powers quite a bit in other areas, if they cannot regulate that.

Yeah

Also, when those things are in the hands of states, usually changes in law can be made more quickly.

Needing a constitutional amendment for every federal law is insanity

Things take forever and are usually prohibitively expensive for individuals when they have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Controlled Substances Act is founded on interstate commerce clause. I do believe that for drugs produced within a state that the Act is npot legitimate.

Well this ruling officially says that any federal law that isn't in the constitution: Is now worth less than toilet paper, because it has no value anymore. It's either the constitution, or state laws, only.

the Constitution limits Federal authority to only those powers delegated to it
by the Constitution itself, or a "law of nations" (treaty)
absent an explicit power to regulate genital mutilation, or the involvement of interstate commerce, or an enabling treaty
the feds lack the power to pass the law in question

I still think the reasoning for interstate commerce is a bit strange.

Raich is a bit strange