The bill contains many provisions legal experts say are likely unconstitutional, including one that says it can’t be challenged in state court.

The bill contains many provisions legal experts say are likely unconstitutional, including one that says it can’t be challenged in state court.

  • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    10 hours ago

    for the most part, TEXAS basically achieved to be like russia, and mostly completed p2025 ahead of miller in that state years ago. florida is following though.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    109·
    1 day ago

    lmao the audacity to try and put a “This law can’t be challenged in court” provision in.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    47·
    1 day ago

    Republicans are all about states rights until they are in power. Then they are all about do what we say or we are coming for you.

        • SaltSong@startrek.websiteEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          . . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?

          Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.

          Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”

          Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.

          • Hellinabucket@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            19 hours ago

            So you’re just going to completely misread an article and make an ass of yourself and not even own up to it?

            • SaltSong@startrek.websiteEnglish
              1·
              12 hours ago

              if i can be shown to have done so, I will. So far all I see is you misusing the phrase “states rights.”

                • SaltSong@startrek.websiteEnglish
                  1·
                  12 hours ago

                  I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.

                  “States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.

                  The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.

                  “States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.

                  Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.

            • SaltSong@startrek.websiteEnglish
              3·
              1 day ago

              Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put “can’t challenge this in court” into a law.

          • Hellinabucket@lemmy.worldEnglish
            12·
            24 hours ago

            I think state rights should mean that a state has the ability the challenge the laws that govern it. This bill specifically has wording to prevent that, it’s the entire reason this article was posted. Please explain to me how stripping a states population of its rights to challenge a bill that governs them is suppose to be for their rights?

              • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
                4·
                18 hours ago

                Only in very specific cases:

                For parents of a child, it is only a crime for these cases:

                Noncustodial parents; 
Fathers whose paternity the government hasn't recognized; 
Parents in active custody cases; 
Parents with a court order requiring them to do so;

                In general, though, you don’t need explicit permission to take your child out of state.

                For non-parents, it is only illegal if done for the following purposes:

                Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity;
Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct; 
Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places; 
Illicit Sexual Conduct in Connection With Certain Organizations; 
Ancillary Offenses (to sexual misconduct);

                Attempt and Conspiracy (to those acts above);

                It’s weird that noncustodial parents are more restricted on taking kids out of state than random non-parental people.

                • Revan343@lemmy.ca
                  3·
                  18 hours ago

                  It’s weird that noncustodial parents are more restricted on taking kids out of state than random non-parental people

                  Presumably it’s because non-custodial parents are more likely to abduct their children than a random stranger is