Replies

Do you see any reason a federal ban on pornography cannot be accomplished without adopting and reinforcing the liberal interpretation of "commerce among the several states"?

I will have to defer to you on this. What is the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause? I'm not as well-versed in the Constitution as you are, although I'm enjoying the bit of research I'm doing on it as I think about this thread.
___________________

But what about this subject? We didn't finish it, and I am interested in your opinion of the similarity between unwanted pornography on the web and indecent exposure. To refresh your memory:

I wrote: ...spam pornography on the internet is pretty much the same as indecent exposure, in that both are unasked-for.

And then you wrote: Are they similar enough that the govenrment's authority to ban one would also cover the other?

The liberal interpretation of "commerce among the several states" originated with FDR, and is often referred to as the "New Deal Commerce Clause". It represents a radical departure from the original intent of the Commerce Clause, and amounts to an usurpation of state powers based on nothing more than sophistry and creative semantics.

If you're doing research, look at the case of Wickard v. Filburn for what is considered the landmark case, and look at the Court Packing Bill for some background on how it came to pass. You might also want to read some of the opinions of Clarence Thomas on the subject, as sell as the writings of the founders with regard to the commerce clause, and commerce "among the several states". I can provide links if you wish.

As far as the question of the similarity an resultant jurisdiction and authority, AFAIK there are no federal laws against indecent exposure, it is considered a matter of state jurisdiction.