Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by LightedCandle
Ed Meese, former attorney general under Ronald Reagan and Judith Reisman, noted author and scholar kick off "FamilyFragments.com" a website dedicated to fighting pornogrpahy.
>> The First Amendment 1) was meant to protect speech of a political nature, but if we accept that it protects all speech, pornography still isn’t speech under a reasonable defintion 2) is explicitly applied to the Federal government.
I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet ... but the 1st Amendment also applies to State governments, via the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment states, in pertinent part ... “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”
The “liberties” enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the “life, liberty and property” clause of the 14th Amendment ... which means States cannot infringe on the right to free speech (or religion, or search & seizure, etc.) any more than the Feds can.
H
Pat youself on the back for knowing how to load a question then, and declare yourself the winner for it, but don't try lecturing me about who is and isn't "liberal" while you're doing it.
Not one bit.
The interpretation of the Commerce Clause you’re peddling originated with FDR and the New Deal “living document” court, not John Marshall.
So you are totally unaware of the roles that Madison and Marshall played in Marbury v. Madison.
I don't recall there being any disagreement or need address the intent and purpose of the power to regulate interstate commerce involved in that case.
Marbury v. Madison had nothing to do with the commerce clause and I never implied that it did. I brought it up to counter you premise that Madison’s integral role in writing the Consitution somehow gives extra weight to his interpretation of the commerce clause.
As far as it only being one of them, it is, but it happens to be the one who wrote it. Who would you choose to be more authoritative as to what it's intent and meaning was?
I was merely pointing out that he never suggested this to the Court and Justice Marshall certainly didn't think so.
The Constitution was a collective work, and while Madison committed the verbiage to paper, he wasn't the original author of all of it. He was of the Commerce Clause, however. What's your opinion of Joseph Story and his writings on the Constitution?
The use of lawsuit as a mechanism suggests an inbuilt corrective: if the jurors think the litigant fails to prove harm or fails to prove the nexus of responsibility, out goes the case. They’ll have to craft their arguments to be overwhelmingly persuasive, not just to Mr. Meese, Dr. Reisman, and Mrs. Don-o, but to 12 jurors who will include in their midst such skeptical citizens as yourself.
I'm open to the idea that there may have been differeing views one specific points among the Founders. From what I've read, some of them considered manufacturing to fall within the scope of "commerce" while others did not, but there was general agreement that agriculture did not among all of them. I'm willing to entertain arguments that there were different views than Madison's on the power to regulate interstate commerce but I expect there to be evidence presented to support them. I won't accept an argument that because they disagreed on something else then we can assume they disagreed about this, too.
It’s been a while since I looked at any of Story’s writings.
Nevertheless, I still find it odd that you are unable to accept the production and sale of pornography as commerce. If this is not commerce, then what exactly is?
And I’m still confused why it is that you and the others think that pornography is protected free speech, yet you get so riled up when a PRIVATE group expresses it’s intention to work to curtail pornography.
Then define interstate commerce for us. Because it sometimes seems that under the libertarian reading of the Constitution, interstate commerce doesn’t even exist.
>> the 14th was intended to prevent states from making laws which prevented blacks from being citizens, or from exercising their rights as citizens, such as voting.
That is only one of the three clauses of the 14th.
>> I’m not a lawyer, but I believe the correct interpretation for this amendment would be that all citizens must be treated equally under state law as well as federal law, and the amendment specifically describes who will be considered citizens. [...] As long as any infringements that state or local governments imposed on people were applied equally to all citizens, they should be legal under the federal constitution.
Actually - I am an attorney.
Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is entirely erroneous. There are THREE separate and distinct applicable clauses to the 14th Amendment ... (1) privileges and immunities, (2) due process, and (3) equal protection.
Only ONE of those clauses deals with equally applying the laws. Your interpretation of the 14th completely ignores the other two clauses ... (1) that States cannot infringe on the privileges and immunities of citizenship (right to vote, etc.) of ANY citizen (equally or otherwise), and, most importantly in this argument, (2) that States are forbidden from depriving ANYONE (equally or otherwise) of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The word “equal” does not appear in the “due process” clause or the “privileges and immunities” clause ... it appears ONLY in the equal protection clause. Equality is not the only controlling factor in how the 14th amendment limits the power of State governments.
The “due process” clause expressly forbids States from infringing liberties without due process of law (the 5th amendment applies the same standard to the Feds). The 14th does not state that a State government CAN infringe liberties if they do so on an equal basis - it says they CANNOT infringe liberties, whether equally or not.
The word “liberties” in the 14th has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include all the liberties of the Bill of Rights (one or two rights have not been specifically incorporated because no pertinent litigation has presented itself, as yet) ... including the right to freedom of speech.
I believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of the term “liberties” ... as it is the interpretation which is used for the term “liberties” in the 5th amendment when applied to the Federal government. The “due process” clauses of the 5th and 14th are identical - so it is reasonable to think they mean the same thing.
This amendment was ratified by the States after the civil war, so the States have consented to this.
H
Now, tell me what you think "regulate" means with regards to the intended purpose of the power "to regulate interstate commerce".
“When he views pornography the reaction he stimulates goes straight to the “old brain” or amygdala passing any cognitive functions. Essentially, porn acts the same way as heroin.”
If I remember correctly, this is what happened to me when I just saw a fully clothed good-looking girl. Especially if she showed even the slightest interest in me.
And I’m still confused why it is that you and the others think that pornography is protected free speech, yet you get so riled up when a PRIVATE group expresses it’s intention to work to curtail pornography.
Convince me that pornogaphy is creating some irregularity in the state of interstate commerce that needs to be remedied in order to correct an injustice among the states. I haven't said anything about "protected speech". Is your objective to regulate interstate commerce, or is regulating commerce simply a tactic you're using to regulate personal behavior?
It doesn't. However, when different states start passing different laws, it will become an issue.
If abortionists are permitted to sue pro-lifers who peacefully picket outside of abortion clinics, then citizens who find pornography offensive should be allowed to sue the purveyors of smut.
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.