Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
"It is for Congress to supply the needed correction where the relation between intrastate and interstate rates presents the evil to be corrected, and this it may do completely, by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce."
BS. Nowhere in this decision is there any reference to Congresses authority in such matters beyond the regulation of common carriers as "instruments of interstate commerce". You selected quote says as much:
by reason of its control over the interstate carrier
Nice try, though.
You've been talking to one.
There is a balance between the rights of the individual and their responsibility to society. Where is the line? I wish it was so clear. It is negotiable. Society and the individual have to decide it.
Why can society and the individual decide that smoking weed is a crime, but at the same time blasphemy is a protected right?
According to Family News In Focus, a search of [Gary] Ridgway's home uncovered pornographic magazines, something frequently linked to sex-crimes. The article further stated that, according to the FBI, 81% of sexually-oriented murderers and serial killers listed pornography as their primary sexual interest.Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson interviewed serial killer Ted Bundy before his execution in 1989. Bundy told Dobson that porn helped fuel his own murder spree. "I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence, just like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography, without question," he told Dobson.
...not to mention, Gary Bishop and the homosexual killers of Jeffrey Curley and a bunch of other desensitized sex addicts who may or may not commit a sex crime.
Of course, every porn enthusiast thinks he is immune to all detrimental effects.
How is your examination of the means by which they propose to remedy the situation coming?
"Similarly, the community government has the right to uphold the moral standard it desires."
Our government has no rights, only constitutionally mandated powers. Please, if you can, show me the specific federal or state constitutional power that allows the government to uphold "moral standards" concerning obscene material. (other then Montana as they actually do have constitutional article allowing them to do this)
"Ooh. Is that a threat? And if I were to press criminal charges against you for that threat?"
Ohh, Bobby, Bobby. What an argument. At least we know you're not allergic to straw, man.
Only an imbecile like you can twist my words around into some type of threat. I believe I said "You want to change that? Prepare to meet my "2nd Amendment". The prior sentence provides context (sound it out if you are having trouble understanding it), which you disregarded in your last post.
Maybe I should rephrase that. What I mean to say is that I have a Constitutional right to absolute ownership of my private property (which includes porn or any number of things you may dislike). I am therefore free from your intrusions, and free from that of the governments, on this matter. If you and the "Holy Roller" Brigade want to press the matter to the point where you would invade MY personal property, MY home, to confiscate my belongings, *THEN* I would have the right to blow your f***ing head off.
Are we clear?
"Did you know that drug addicts are not allowed to possess handguns in Alabama?"
I know of it, and I adamantly oppose it as a discriminatory and BLATANTLY unconstitutional restriction on the freedoms of a certain group of American citizens. I cannot control the scribblings of reactionary thugs from the State bench any more than I can control the ruling of the Marxists on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
States do? All states? Don't you want to check the idividual constitutions of the states before claiming they have those powers?
Are you sure about that?
Yes they do. Of course wheather that covers banning pornography may be somewhat dependent on who's definition of "regulate interstate commerce" you choose to employ.
Well, the means of remedying the situation is awfully complicated! I've done a lot of reading via the www in the last few days. The most important thing I've discovered is that laws exist which prohibit certain kinds of pornography, but they are not always enforced... which I don't understand at all. I mean, why go to the trouble of writing laws if they aren't going to be enforced? http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?obscenityEnforcement.htm and http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/pornography/caape/ (General citizen action and anti-porn efforts.
Also, http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?stopSpam.htm (in particular, "porn spam")
When are you going to give your views on the matter? (If you already have and I missed them, sorry. This has gotten to be a long thread...)
Today I noticed two "Adult Video" shacks on the interstate hwy that have closed down recently. One had cars in the parking lot just last week, but now it's vacant and there is graffiti on the side. Obviously, this made my day. : ) Does anyone here know what the easiest way would be for me to find out what they did that got them closed down?
I think sometimes laws are written to be enforced against a particular individual or situation that has become a personal issue with someone with enough influence in the legislature to get them passed. Once that particular situation is remedied, they move on to other issues. In Missouri, it is illegal to rollerskate in a saloon. Why did they do that?
My take on it is that if you're more afraid of something, be it drugs, pornography, terrorism, guns, or anything else, than you are of losing your freedom people who think you have too much freedom will play on that fear and try to use it to trick you into giving up your freedom willingly. In order to do what is appropriate and proper we must examine their arguments and proposed means carefully and not get caught up in a lot of emotional hype or we will not be able to maintain the Republic that has been left in our trust.
So in your opinion States have powers not delegated to them via their constitutions. It's a strange strange world in which we live.
States have unlimited powers now...who knew we lived in a tyranny.
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.