Replies

I defy anyone to prove that the founding fathers intended for the US Constitution to protect the production and sale of pornography."

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.

Neither of those two amendments protect the use of pornography. They reserve the rights of the states or the people to decide such issues for themselves. In other words, the Constitution, if we were ever to actually honor it, denies the federal government the authority to ban pornography (or almost anything, for that matter) but does not prevent the States or local governments from doing so.

Unfortunately, in recent practice, particularly with the Texas sodomy laws, the Supreme Court has decided that somehow, inexplicably, the Constitution does indeed limit the power of the States in this regard. If you take the argument that the Constitution protects pornography, then you are actually arguing against those two amendments above, rather than for them.

"Neither of those two amendments protect the use of pornography."

They protect it from the ignorant folks who claim that we have no rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution. They also protect it from the Federal government, which is precisely what some want to use to enact their anti-pornography agenda into law. Most of the 'pornography should be illegal' people want to work on the Federal level so that they don't have to shove their agenda down peoples' throats 50+ times in different places.

"Unfortunately, in recent practice, particularly with the Texas sodomy laws, the Supreme Court has decided that somehow, inexplicably, the Constitution does indeed limit the power of the States in this regard."

While I agree with the sentiment expressed by the SCOTUS in that decision - that the private sexual acts between consenting adults in their own homes ought not be legislated - I also agree with you that the Federal government has no business sticking its nose in that fight. As it was, a lot of state supreme courts had already overturned those laws. It was simply a case of the SCOTUS extending the arm of the Federal government while once again shortchanging the rights of states.

If someone wants to ban pornography in the state of New Jersey, I'll fight that fight while recognizing the right of the state to do it (depending on the state constitution). However, whenever people get into a discussion about banning it, jurisdiction is virtually never discussed. States rights and the US Constitution are merely irrelevant details in their jihad to rid the country of something they don't like.