4

In the upcoming election, several states intend to put abortion rights on the ballot for consideration by the voters with successful passage resulting in an amendment to that state's constitution which will preserve those rights.

Some candidates for Congress have indicated that if they are able to successfully take back both Congress and the Presidency, they would ban abortions on the federal level. For the sake of this argument, let's assume they have the votes to do so.

Presumably, the passage of a federal law to ban abortion nationwide would be in direct contradiction with state laws. However, if these various votes are successful this is a bit more than a state law, rather it's an amendment to a state's constitution. Would the passage of a federal abortion ban automatically repeal the various states' constitutional amendments? Or would they be considered void until such time that the federal law is repealed?

Could doctors in those states continue to perform abortions under the presumption that nobody in the state will enforce the federal law? This would be akin to how many states have legalized cannabis to a variety of degrees despite it continuing to be illegal on a federal level.

Pyrotechnical
  • 2,728
  • 1
  • 16
  • 39

2 Answers2

15

Would the passage of a federal abortion ban automatically repeal the various states' constitutional amendments? Or would they be considered void until such time that the federal law is repealed?

They would be void until such time that the federal law is repealed (assuming, for sake of argument, that the federal ban is constitutional, which is a long, complicated, indeterminate, and unresolved legal question).

For example, state constitutional provisions imposing religious requirements to hold public office remained in state constitutions long after they were held to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment establishment clause. Some may even still be there now.

Similarly, when the Dobson decision overruling Roe v. Wade was decided, many state laws on abortion, including one in Arizona, took effect again, despite the fact that those laws had been without effect due to Roe v. Wade for about fifty years.

The Supremacy Clause, in general, makes no distinction between state constitutions and state statutes. This point is right in the express language of the Supremacy Clause itself, which says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

ohwilleke
  • 257,510
  • 16
  • 506
  • 896
-6

Roe vs Wade enshrined abortion rights in federal law to prevent state law from banning abortions.

It's ar from inconceivable that the reverse could also be possible, using a similar legal construct to create a federal law that overrides state laws and even state constitutions (e.g. the way Obamacare (ab)uses the interstate commerce clause to require health insurance).

A constitutional change requires so much unity within a state (let alone the federal constitution) that I don't foresee any change to the constitution, let alone on a hot topic item like abortion, from ever passing. And if it did it'd probably be challenged as an unconstitutional amendment instantly (whether it'd be an amendment allowing OR banning abortion).

jwenting
  • 563
  • 3
  • 6