The Commerce Clause means no grass, no dildoes, no fun of any kind.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/02/2007 12:15:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
For obvious reasons. |
Posted on 10/02/2007 4:35:31 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
Then let the voters decide. If it's not just someone's opinon and is truly fact, then the voters will choose what they really want. I have a real problem with these "holier than thou" busybodies in elected office managing every aspect of our lives. You should too, comrade.
States don’t have rights they have powers. Where in the Alabama constitution is the enumerated power to regulate these devices?
I am concerned,maybe more than it shows..This might show up on this next ballot,,though you and i both know you can’t legislate morals.
The Commerce Clause means no grass, no dildoes, no fun of any kind.
Or glass ‘fruit’ like bananas.
What’s next? Banning anything that can be used as a toy?
I’m with the North. I fail to see how it’s either the feds or the state’s business.
OMG, you’re series, aren’t you? I hear back massagers are legal in every state, and with a little bit of creative thinking just might eliminate that excessive tension.
Yep, but that doesn't stop the "holier than thou" politico's from trying. Funny thing is, my experience shows the best way to lead is by example. If that is the case, why is it so many of these politico's keep getting caught in Men's rooms trying to solicite gay sex, or getting caught with $100K in their freezer, or the multitude of them that have extramarital affairs or show up on high priced call-girl lists? Do as I sez, not as I does....
I’m serious that states, like the federal government, only have (or at least are supposed to only have) those powers delegated to them by the people. As far the actual “toys” go, I could care less who uses them or not as that immaterial. If your only comment concerning this view is suggesting I use a back massager to relieve some claimed “tension” then I suggest that you missed the point. So to speak.
Dates aren’t guaranteed to satisfy....or do much of anything come to think of it....
Agreed.
I can only presume that the Alabama Constitution allows the state to regulate businesses in this way.
I think such a law is silly and immoral (government of any kind telling free adults what legal products they can and cannot buy and sell?), but the Fed should keep its nose out.
It IS a states’ rights issue, and as a Federalist, I think that legally, the SCOTUS got it right.
However, on a side note, this is exactly the kind of uber-religious nanny state bullsh*t perpetuated by a certain segment of so-called “conservatives” that turns off a lot of voters.
See my last post. Welcome to the Holier-than-Thou club.
Sounds as if you speak from experience?
;-)
Constitutionally, Alabama is probably within their rights to pass such a law...but my opinion is further showcased in post 54.
Ping!
Exactly, this is a good dose of federalism. If Alabama wants to ban sex toys, good for them.
If the sheeple in CA ever voted in one of their asinine mobocratic ballot initiatives to ban all firearms, you folks would be singing a different tune regarding "States Rights."
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.