Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 08/27/2005 1:44:34 AM PDT by Crackingham
A new state law banning seminude lap dances at Missouri strip clubs was declared unconstitutional by a judge Friday, two days before it was to go into effect. Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said provisions of the law violate First Amendment protections and state constitutional limits on amending a bill beyond its original purpose.
"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects, a showing that has not been made," Callahan said in the declaratory judgment.
Under the law, signed in July by Gov. Matt Blunt, seminude lap dances would have been banned and dancers would have had to stay at least 10 feet from each other. Customers would have faced misdemeanor charges for tucking money into a dancers' G-strings, and the minimum age for dancers and customers would have risen from 19 to 21. The adult entertainment industry's attorneys had argued the law violated free-speech and expression rights, and they also said it violated a state constitutional requirement that bills relate to one subject and remain tied to their original purpose.
The bill that included the strip club restrictions initially was labeled as a bill for alcohol-related traffic offenses but was passed under the heading of "crime." The attorney general's office said it was reviewing the judge's decision and didn't yet know what actions it might take.
Joe Spinello, general manager of the Shady Lady Lounge in Kansas City, said the restrictions probably would have forced him to cut staff. He said clubs hurt most by law would be ones that rely on customers and employees who are under 21.
Well, that is a part of it... The main reason is that the ban on stripping was a direct violation of the MO State Constitution. It's got a feature that would be WONDERFUL in the US Consitution: There's a provision that you can't just tack-on amendments to a bill that have nothing to do with the original bill's intent. Can you imagine how a ban on that sort of nonsense would cut back on pork spending, as well as "little surprises" when legislation passed? Heck, some legislators might actually try reading the bills before they vote on them! And there would be no more 900 page omnibus bills!
What happend is the guy behind the bill couldn't get enough support for the bill to pass on its own, so he tacked the provisions on to (I believe) a bill that deals with drunk driving (I can't remember the exact bill right now). That's what violated the MO Constitution.
Mark
ping
methinks that his honor dah judge will be entitled to free dances at the local clubs now or at least a substantial discount.
was that what he was anglin for ?
Scorched pants. . .hmmmm; where there is smoke. . .there is a public health hazard. This law sounds self-serving and contradictory. . .
Check.
"You can have my lap-dancer when you pry her from my cold, dead hands...."
That would be in line with how the left views the Second Amendment.
I think you missed my point: If you're going to strictly interpret the Constitution based soley upon what you think the Founding Fathers intended, then you may end up with unintended consequences.
Are they talking about the right of the dancer or the patron?
LOL!
Not in most states. Smoking in bars is verboten.
Well it would add a whole new meaning to the term B and B.
:)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
latre pingout.
Now, if they would only apply it every time.
Campaign finance reform comes to mind. Swatting down the anti-smoking Nazis and the neo-prohibitionists would be nice also.
"When drafting the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers had smooth bore muskets and pistols and swords in mind and therefore, the right to bear anything other than a smooth bore musket or pistol or sword is not protected under the 2nd Amendment."
No, they had ALL weapons and arms in mind, including those of future generations, for national and self defense purposes and for overthrowing the government if need be. I think you're way off here. Better leave the 'strict construction-ism' to the experts.
did you mean to say 'anglin' or 'danglin'?
BTTT!!!!!
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.