Of course not. The founders believed in reasonable regulations by the smallest government possible.. Local governments can best regulate public aspects of porn, and, if necessary, States can reasonably regulate intra/interstate aspects.
The commerce clause issue can be argued as a limit on Federal power, but that is simply a debate about WHO controls it (state or feds), not WHETHER ANY government should control it.
Not true, in that fed & state ~abuses~ of the control power to regulate porn, - without infringing on individual liberties, - are exactly what the debate is about.
You seem to be saying that NO government should control it, including states.
Hype.. - I've seen no one here make that point. -- We're objecting about over-controls that infringe on other liberties.
I believe that pornography does great direct harm to our citizens AND to our nation.
I passed on the first try, and graduated with honors from a top 20 law school.
Your inability to 'see' the true debate about our commerce clause undermines your 'honors' credibility..
Not bragging...just refuting your infantile comment.
In a way, calling those comments 'infantile' also shows us your braggadocio.
You obviously haven't read all of the threads.
I read enough of your remarks to refute the ones above. -- Obviously, you don't intend to rebut my comments, so you're gonna blow some smoke, then retire from the field.
There have been two debates that I've participated in on this thread:
1. Whether the commerce clause permits federal government -- as opposed to state government -- regulation of internet porn. (Some have agreed that states may regulate porn without being in violation of any Constitutional rights, but that there is no FEDERAL authority to do it. This is a respectable, although I believe incorrect, position.)
Getting smoky in here.
2. Whether the First Amendment to the federal constitution prohibits regulation of internet porn by feds AND STATES.
As you can see above, - I made that same point to you.
(Some have made the preposterous argument that internet porn is somehow "protected speech" under the First Amendment.
Hasn't the USSC made the argument that most 'porn' is "protected speech" under the First Amendment?
The necessary correlary to this is that EVEN STATES would be prohibited from regulating internet porn,
More hype. -- Are you sure you've been trained in logical debate? I don't know anyone rational that argues "STATES would be prohibited" from reasonably regulating porn..
at least according to the questionable (but entrenched) doctrine that says that the first amendment applies to state legislation via incorporation into the 14th.)
The free speech clause of the 1st applies to fed/state/local levels, - just like all of our BoR's and all of the Constitution applies, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
You really should get a refresher course on Constitutional principles. - Or read some good books.
I highly recommend Barnett's book on 'A Presumption of Liberty'...
Again, you obfuscate the issues. (I see that you also wish to side with liberal supreme court justices, but that's another issue, Mr. Breyer.)
Again, there are two issues:
1. Do pictures of two libertarian fellas boning each other fall under the category of "protected speech" such that the silly SCOTUS-manufactured incorporation doctrine prevents state governments from regulating the pictures as they see fit?
2. If they do not, then does the federal government have the power, via the commerce clause, to regulate as they see fit, or is it solely a state power.
I've simply assumed that you would understand that I wasn't concerned with the EXTENT of the restriction. That's not the issue at all for me in this thread, and never has been. To make it clearer, I have added the words "as they see fit" above. Now if you have anything on-point to say, go for it. However, I'm not interested in any more dodges.