I don’t think that provision ever applied anyways. The Murrah Building was built in 1977, but the federal government stopped asking states to grant exclusive jurisdiction over new federal facilities in the 1940s.
Right, but as Chief Justice Ultravires, I see that provision as saying that if the feds buy land with the consent of a state and erect a “needful building,” that they then automatically have exclusive jurisdiction over it, no cessation by the state needed or a reservation allowed.
What I mean is that I don’t think they do seek the consent of the state any more. They only need that if they want exclusive jurisdiction, which seems like more of a burden than a privilege given that they often end up giving it back.
In any event, it wasn’t an executive order. That’s why we’re calling it the “OSHA mandate.” OSHA promulgated a new safety standard pursuant to the authority Congress gave it.
This isn’t a position confined to “local” “crazies,” it’s been the subject of serious scholarship since the time of Roe. Sure, the Amendment doesn’t define “person” so you need to provide a definition.
You can go here to find an argument drawing from the common law (and Blackstone!). I don’t know enough about 1860s inheritance law to know whether their “original public meaning” argument is persuasive.
Although I do know that, since the 1880s, a corporation has been a “person” under the 14th Amendment, but if you asked me how many people were in my house, I wouldn’t say “3: Myself, my wife, and the articles of incorporation for our family business”.
But, my real point is that there are a number of “conservatives” who would argue in favor the flexible interpretations and evolving standards that are commonly associated with “liberals” who would argue that person should be interpreted to protect the unborn because it is morally right (consider, for example, Vermule’s “Common Good Constitutionalism”).
The judicial minimists and more traditional “conservatives” are aligned in a world where Roe exists, but won’t necessarily be in a post-Roe world.
For those interested here is a good rundown of the many problems with fetal protection statutes. It’s pretty long:
That brief is almost Rule 11 sanctionable. Blackstone talked generally about the rights of Englishmen and the brief cites a congressman saying that the rights discussed by Blackstone apply from the moment of stirring in a mother’s womb.
Such language is clearly rhetorical flourish and not a comment on abortion or fetal personhood. Perhaps I have underestimated the fervor of some on the right about fetal personhood, but it is not a mainstream position. This was an amicus brief, which any lawyer admitted to the Supreme Court bar can file, and not the official position of any organization with power.
As noted:
Amici are scholars of jurisprudence and constitutional law and have published on moral and legal questions regarding abortion, the right to life, legal personality, and the identity and nature of human persons from their earliest stages of existence.
IOW, cranks.
If you take away the pejoratives in that article, it is really an excellent summary of the issues with fetal personhood laws.
I wondered about that. The feds don’t need state permission to buy land in a state, do they? The cession principle would mainly be for things like military bases or federal prisons, where there would be a good argument for exclusive federal jurisdiction?
Modnote: Going pretty far off-topic here. Let’s pull back from the land cession conversation.
Among the outlandish and fringe cranks pushing for fetal personhood is the State of Texas, which just charged a woman with murder for inducing an abortion.
I mean, some rando on Twitter, the State of Texas, same same. Sorry about the nutpicking.
Do you have a cite? Maybe it is worse than I thought. You all will have an ally in me if this happens. I am pro-life, but I believe as a legal matter, abortion is something that should be left to the democratic process. But if you guys in NY, MD, or CA want to have legal abortion, much like the Roe jurisprudence today, then that is what free people are allowed to do. People in WV can outlaw it, but we cannot stop people from driving across the state line to MD and get one.
If that is what the pro-life movement has become, then I am not a part of it, and from my limited observation, most pro-lifers are like me.
You seemed to believe WV could do just that some time ago
Pre (and maybe post) Roe v. Wade--leaving the state for an abortion - #21 by UltraVires
You may have changed your opinion since then - but that doesn’t mean everyone has.
You went back almost 10 years to find something to contradict my position? 
I am impressed.
However, I believe my prior argument has some surface appeal, but I believe that the dormant commerce clause would and should forbid a state from doing such a thing.
Nothing to be impressed about - it stuck in my mind so it took about 30 seconds. What is actually impressive is that you predicted that it would happen in 2022.
Hell, I glossed over that part. I guess I’m part of the conspiracy.
The context in which I made the post was one of an argument that is not facially absurd. I don’t think it would ever get 5 votes on the Supreme Court even with decades of Trump appointments.
Here’s the first article from Google:
$500,000 bond?
Really?
Is that usual in Texas?
I can’t tell if you think that’s high or low for a “murderer”.
I do not think anything.
What is normal in Texas for a “murderer?”
(I am not sure how to search for what is “normal” for bonds in Texas murder cases.)