Oops, I'm sorry wrong thread! Stick them where? These are legal in Alambama aren't they?
Posted on 08/04/2004 3:05:34 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
You don't understand.
This ruling from the court of appeals doesn't say you can't buy adult toys. What it does say is that there is no constitutional grounds to allow the federal government to step in and overturn a law properly passed in alabama. There is no federal protection on this issue, becuase the constitution doesn't grant the government that power - and the bill of rights doesn't apply to this case. It's a state's right's issue.
That's the same conclusion they should have reached in roe v. wade. They had no basis to step in but they did, because they chose to invent a 'right' that doesn't really exist.
So if you complain about this one and roe v. wade at the same time, you'd just be hypocritical.
I don't know. Some of these "Ohio Crazy Laws" seem perfectly sane to me:
Owners of tigers must notify authorities within one hour if the tiger escapes.
It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.
If they want my sex toys, they can pry them from my dead, cold... well, you know...
The Supremes, given the recent precedent of Lawrence vs Texas, are going t blow this decision away.
You can have them as long as you smuggle them in. Sex toys and educational materials can not be sold in Alabama.
I'm not remembring Lawrence v Tx. So on what grounds do you suppose a state is gonna get it's chain yanked for setting community obscenity standards?
This is not a dangerous product that should be regulated. Why do you find this ruling to be satisfactory? Not all rulings under 'states rights' are intelligent or morally acceptable.
Ding Ding Ding !! You win the prize on this one. That's funny as Hell !!!!
Where in the Constitution is that located? Or is it sort of like one of Blackmun's "pernumbras"?
Where in the Constitution is that located? Or is it sort of like one of Blackmun's "pernumbras"?
Privacy is part of our unenumerated rights to life, liberty & property, -- at least to rational people.
Others differ. -- PAR for the course, naturally.
Do you really think everyone else has a right to know ~your~ private business, par35?
'The right to privacy' was the product of an 1890 Harvard Law Review article by Brandeis and Warren and a 1905 Georgia state Supreme Court case. (Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.)
I have few illusions left about my actual privacy, and my knowledge of that area predates the USA Patriot Act.
The decision that eliminated legal control of private sexual conduct.
Where in the Constitution is that [right to privacy] located? Or is it sort of like one of Blackmun's "pernumbras"?
I always admired this guys ability to cut through the BS:
"Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?"
"Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document.
I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married — that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?
The Constitution also doesn't include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.
How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?
Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.
The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.
--- The Bill of Rights ---
The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, because the authors believed it wasn't necessary — since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers the federal government was given.
However, some of the Founding Fathers thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was composed — and some states ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added to the Constitution.
Whereas the main part of the Constitution spells out the few things that government may do or must do, the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights spell out what government may not do. For example:
The government can't search or seize your property without due process of law,
It can't keep you in jail indefinitely without a trial,
It can't enact laws abridging the freedom of speech or religion, or infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
And various other prohibitions on government activity are spelled out.
The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, where's the right to privacy?
It is clearly in those two amendments.
The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in sexual acts;
no right to invade our privacy;
no right to manage our health-care system;
no right to tell us what a marriage is;
no right to run our lives;
no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution."
And, since our States are specifically bound to support the US Constitution as the "Law of the Land", and as their powers to ignore our rights to a private life, liberty, or private property are prohibited by the 10th Amendment, -- case closed.
You have a problem then. This case doesn't touch private sexual conduct. It doesn't go anywhere near it. It is mearly regulating public advertising and public sales in the state. Something which they have every right under the obscenity laws to do. Trust me, this town went through it years ago and the decision still stands and has been used as precident elsewhere successfully. They aren't even saying people can't buy the stuff, they're just saying they reserve the right to decide what is obscene in their communities. So, nutshell, the Lawrence decision is immaterial.
Any power not explicitly given to the federal government under our constitution is reserved to the states and their communities. The long standing obscenity clause to free speach allows communities to set obscenity standards and that allows the state, then to set such standards. There is no supreme court issue here that belongs on the federal level and the state is well within it's rights. That is most decidedly case closed.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And when Alabama wants to use that reserved power in a way you don't like, you say that the state is violating an unwritten fundamental right.
This is why we call Alabama Alabamastan.
It just sux......lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.