The federal government has *plenary* authority over interstate commerce. Consequently, Congress could simply strike down the laws in 19 states barring the transportation of abortifacient pills across state lines. For that matter, so could the Commerce Dept through regulation. 1/2
Example: a number of states have laws regulating the transport of fruits and vegetables across their state lines, but states can apply these regulations *only* because the U.S. Dept of Agriculture permits it. (The Dept also has its own regulations.) 2/2 tinyurl.com/yx9ea3rr
What everyone seems to be missing is that Interstate commerce involving Mifepristone became an issue the very moment the FDA approved its use and sale. Obviously, no state can bar the importation of any legal substance or product unless the federal govt approves such a ban.
Do not suppose that the Biden Administration has missed this perfectly obvious and unquestionable point of constitutional law.

In fact, the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone was undoubtedly the first step of a two-step process. We are waiting now for the second shoe to drop.
Now that I think about it, in fact, it is clear that the Administration doesn’t even need to issue a new regulation *permitting* the transportation of Mifepristone over state lines. (Here I’m partially correcting what I said in tweet #1 above.)
All the Commerce Dept has to do is point out that the transportation of MIfepristone across state lines is lawful simply because there is no existing federal law or regulation *prohibiting* it!
Nor would it be legal for the 19 states to make the consumption or use of Mifresidone by residents of their states illegal even though receiving it from another state (across state lines) is legal.
This, too, would be illegal under federal law (the commerce clause of the Constitution). Obviously, if it is legal to import X into a state, then it is legal to consume or use X in that state.
If it is illegal for California to bar the importation of pineapples from Hawaii, then it is eo ipso illegal for California to bar the *consumption* of pineapples from Hawaii. Were it otherwise, the commerce clause of the federal constitution would be meaningless.
So far as Mifepristone is concerned, it was game over as soon as the FDA declared it to be safe and approved its sale. This will start dawning on the country--women, anti-abortion activists, and pro-choice activists--very soon.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @twoodiac

11 Dec
It’s taking a long time to indict Trump b/c it’s all very complicated, involving hundreds--may thousands--of interrelated moving parts. Before indicting just one part of it effectively (e.g., obstruction of justice), one has to have pieced together all the parts of the plot. 1/6
Then one has to boil it all down to a theory of the case that is simple and compelling enough to convince a jury in real time. (Real time being trial time). 2/6
At his confirmation hearing, Garland pledged to make investigation into Jan. 6 his first priority as AG. He also said that, if confirmed, he would not rule out investigating funders, organizers, ringleaders, aiders or abettors of the assault. 3/6 tinyurl.com/y9um4wa9
Read 7 tweets
6 Dec
The U.S. Constitution clearly stands for the proposition that a state’s national representatives are *directly* chosen by the state’s voters, and not indirectly by the state’s legislatures.

This is clearly embodied in the Seventeenth Amendment. 1/12 tinyurl.com/pa4asw5
The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” 2/12
The U.S. Constitution stands even more clearly for the proposition that the electors that are sent to the Electoral College are sent there by a majority of the voters in each state, not by the state legislatures. 3/12
Read 13 tweets
1 Dec
Pence did not have the power to decline to certify the election on Jan 6. If he had done so, he would have acted unconstitutionally. But if Pence *had* done this, there would have been no obstruction of the congressional certification process itself. 1/7
In that case, everything would have been done pro forma, even though the outcome would have been unconstitutional (and would undoubtedly have thrown the country into complete, violent turmoil). 2/7
But getting Pence to act unconstitutionally was the only way that Trump could have remained in office on Jan 20 *without* obstructing justice. Absent that, Trump had to obstruct the process itself. 3/7
Read 8 tweets
13 Nov
The legal case against Trump for what he did (and didn’t do) on Jan 6 took a significant, though not unpredictable, turn today with the release of the following excerpt from Jonathan Karl’s soon to be released book (h/t Axios): 1/12 Image
Here, Trump is clearly excusing and condoning the violence on Jan 6 that he incited on the grounds that it was motivated by righteous and justified political anger. 2/12
Political anger, whether righteous and justified or not, does not provide a legal excuse for *any* violence--like, for example, the insurrectionary violence that occurred on Jan 6. 3/12
Read 13 tweets
16 Sep
Today Psaki (speaking for Biden) accused Trump of “fomenting an insurrection.”

I now expect that the Admin is planning to indict Trump for what he did (and failed to do) on Jan 6, and that it goes beyond obstruction of justice (OOJ being bad enough). 1/4 tinyurl.com/yjnvrx68
On Jan 6 Biden, referring to the *rioters,* called the attack on the Capitol an “insurrection” that “bordered on sedition.” He did not accuse Trump himself of “fomenting an insurrection.”

He did today, through Psaki. 2/4
Psaki chooses her words carefully. The move from accusing the *rioters* of engaging in an insurrection bordering on sedition to accusing *Trump* of “fomenting an insurrection” really makes one wonder: What has *Biden* been told about Jan 6 by the FBI and DOJ?! 3/4
Read 5 tweets
11 Sep
My prediction: The federal district court in Austin will grant the declaratory and injunctive relief against SB 8 that the federal government has requested. That should provide a safe enough harbor for abortion providers to resume services, though relief will take weeks. 1/5
For faster action, invoke Section 242. That would involve the feds targeting and suing individuals acting as private attorneys general on the authority of rights conferred (unconstitutionally) by an (unconstitutional) state law (SB 8), and doing so in federal court. 2/5
Note that Section 242 can be invoked for violations of constitutional rights alone. That is, no federal statute is needed to invoke it (though most lawsuits under 242 do so under the authority of a statute). 3/5
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(