Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."
"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
I believe that if there is no one interested in it, then no one will buy it and then they will quit selling it.
No perversions are being forced on anyone, because no one is forced to buy them. If they are allowed to be sold, as they are currently and have been for some time, then there should be age restrictions.
You state that other states are doing it, I reply the same as I would my kids about their friend; Just because they jumped off the Empire State Building without parachutes, doesn't mean you should do it? California banned "Assault Weapons" does that mean that we should, just because it fits the morals of a single assembly person and a few people state wide?
It is your religious beliefs that back this stupid bill. Just because your name is not in the article does not mean that you should not be taken to task for your comments about some perversion being forced on the citizens of SC. Sorry, but that don't float. No one forces people to eat unhealthy and no one is forced to buy sex toys.
The citizens do not decide, it is the assembly. Yes the citizens vote the members in, but the members can go rogue and go against the citizens. Yes they can be voted out, but it is too late if a bill becomes law and we know how often a law gets taken off the books. Look at the law that the guy that fell into the river and swore, while a lady and her child were near by, got charged with a few years ago. The law about swearing around women and children had been on the books since the 1800s, I haven't heard that it has been repealed yet.
As I said in an earlier post, if you had a crack house next door, prostitutes walking up and down your sidewalks, and an OTB parlor and bar across the street from where you live, that would be OK because no one's forcing you to partake in what's being offered?
C'mon.
Actually it's not. It's my belief that people should be able to decide amongst themselves how they will live together. Majority rules.
Feh. This is why the Republicans will lose votes from the right-of-center libertarian crowd, whom I think really represent the majority in this country, not Bible thumpers who think it's their job to tell grown adults what they can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Unfortunately, some people with way too much free time on their hands obsess over this stuff over other little things like, you know, terrorism and the borders.
Hmmmm. And here I thought the legislation only covered the sale of the products -- I guess I misread the title of the article.
You quoted Madison earlier -- please allow me to do so also. His comments before the House of Representatives when he was arguing in favor of a Bill of Rights:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."He was referring to the text that would eventually become the 9th Amendment:
-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(Wait a minute -- that's the 9th Amendment verbatim, saying that the Constitution enumerates rights? Yes, with the express caveat that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people. That's a good thing.)
Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!
Bite your tongue. If you read the full text of Madison's previously quoted (by both you and me) speech to the House, you'll hear several times a distinct wink and a nod to the effect that he hopes all the States will incorporate the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions and laws. Madison again:
"If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people."So I would disagree that the 14th Amendment was some sort of gross aberration to the intent of the Founders. In reality, it was the logical extension to the spirit of the Constitution, because it settled once and for all that the rights enumerated in the Constitution (yes, enumerated in the Constitution, I said it again) applied to the People in all the States. (Okay, I apologize -- I'm just tweaking with you a little with the whole "enumerated" thing, even though I'm right. The Constitution actually enumerates very limited powers to the government, and reserves all others for the States and the People, I realize that. But the Bill of Rights is commonly said to "enumerate rights" -- you were merely arguing semantics to say otherwise).
You'll have to be more specific when you talk about my inconsistencies -- I don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, I thought I was clear about that. I'm simply saying that you seem to be in favor of strong, even extreme federalism when it is convenient for a political position you support (gun control laws), but in favor of the Supremacy Clause and federal intervention when that allegedly supports a different political position you hold (drug laws, which is a case where I would argue that ironically, the federal government has actually overstepped its Constitutionally enumerated powers, by using "regulation of commerce" as a baldfaced phony excuse to restrict activities which should in fact fall under the control of the States' police powers. I know you'll cite case law to support your position, and I'll still tell you you're wrong -- the standard application of Constitutional law in this area is "well-intentioned" but wrong). You seem to engage in a la carte principle selection, depending on which one suits your political position, rather than taking a consistent stand on principle and letting the political results of that position flow naturally from the principle.
Furthermore, every federal court in every court decision (save one court in one decision) has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia. That's all the second amendment does.
Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, the U.S. Department of Justice position on the issue. Hope you'll take the time to actually read that -- it's lengthy but very in-depth in examining the issue. From that page:
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.One last goody for you, too. Even though you don't like the 14th Amendment, it's part of the Constitution. Despite mixed interpretations in case law regarding its effect on the 2nd Amendment, the original drafter of the 14th Amendment, John A. Bingham (R., Ohio), had absolutely no doubt as to its intended application:
Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:ARTICLE I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ARTICLE 2
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
[Amendments III-VIII, also listed by Bingham, are here omitted.]
"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union."
Where does this leave right-of-center libertarian Bible thumpers, like me? :-)
If you're a true libertarian, you'll thump your Bible but not make me do it with you : )
Then I'm certainly a libertarian (small "l").
As much as I want to see all people come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, I believe that this is achieved through personal one-on-one evangelism, not state-enforced religious legalism. As we've been discussing (at length) on this thread, the Constitution strictly limits the power and scope of government, to the benefit of all who live in the God-given liberty this provides.
If the personal morality of the nation's individuals has decayed so badly that they cannot handle the responsibility of living freely in self-governance and self-determination, then all the nanny-state totalitarian force in the world isn't going to change their hearts anyway.
"-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I read that as, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights protected from federal infringement by this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"... you'll hear several times a distinct wink and a nod to the effect that he hopes all the States will incorporate the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions and laws."
Be that as it may, 150 years went by before the states started incorporating the BOR, and only because they were forced by the U.S. Supreme Court to do so! But if the states themselves adopted some or all of the BOR, at least the state supreme court would interpret them, not five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court telling us that nude dancing is protected "speech" and all states must comply. That's how the 14th is destroying federalism.
"I'm simply saying that you seem to be in favor of strong, even extreme federalism when it is convenient for a political position you support (gun control laws), but in favor of the Supremacy Clause and federal intervention when that allegedly supports a different political position you hold (drug laws ...)"
Mere coincidence.
My "principle" is based on constitutionality -- in these two areas, I happen to agree with the courts. The second amendment is not incorporated and only applies to the federal government. I think we agree, so I will not belabor the point.
Regarding drugs, I think we agree that Congress has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs. Maybe they shouldn't be in that business (an arguable point), but they certainly have that power if they choose to do so (which they did so choose).
As to the intrastate regulation, that seems to be the sticking point. The bottom line is this -- since intrastate drugs would affect Congress' interstate regulation, they can control it. If they cannot, then we can just forget about the Commerce Clause.
For example, Congress regulates the airlines -- cruising altitudes, air corridors, landing patterns, radio frequencies, etc. What if the intrastate carriers took the same attitude as the pro-drug group and said that Congress may not regulate them -- that they can fly wherever and whenever they want since they only fly within their state?
Oh, that makes sense robertpaulsen, so Congress should be allowed to regulate them also. It not only makes sense, it's constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It makes as much sense for intrastate air traffic regulation as it does for intrastate drug regulation.
Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, the U.S. Department of Justice position on the issue."
Yes, I read it. Their position and $6.95 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. If Hillary gets elected, I'm sure her Department of Justice will have something to say about the second amendment. Will you be citing that?
"the original drafter of the 14th Amendment, John A. Bingham (R., Ohio), had absolutely no doubt as to its intended application:"
I believe Mr. Bingham was the ONLY one who knew this. Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court didn't know its intended application -- in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, April 5, 1869, the Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of the case by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.
Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the states, you would think that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have known about this intent, either the plaintiff's lawyer, or one of the nine eminent constitutional lawyers on the 1869 Supreme Court.
Now, not only didn't the U.S. Supreme Court know its intended application, Congress didn't know its intended application. A mere eight years after the 14th amendment was ratified, Congress debated, and almost passed, the "Blaine Amendment" -- a resolution to recommend to the states a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the first amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government.
Now why would they do this if the first amendment was already incorporated under the 14th amendment?
And if I may boil this entire debate down to a simple point, it would be that I do not agree with the courts, or their interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar -- I know that many men of good conscience have mulled over these issues through the years. Some have reached conclusions similar to yours, and some have reached conclusions similar to mine.
You actually seem to have a much better grasp of history and Constitutional law than many of the people debating with you give you credit for. I simply disagree with your conclusions, and prefer a much more libertarian application of law.
My view is that the Founders were saying something like this: "Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."
Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.
And extending this silly little analogy ad nauseam, I believe that today, we find that the government that was placed inside that box looks a lot like The Blob (the monster from all those old movies). It has escaped from the box, is invading everywhere, and is entangled in places it never should have been. Its enablers and accomplices have been many, and they are not necessarily conspiratorially involved -- but for whatever reason, they allowed it to escape, and it continues to grow.
I understand that this is a very "philosophical" analogy, that has a limited relationship to the reality of legal issues, but I think it at least provides an overview of how I view the role of government as intended vs. the role of government as practiced.
Wow!
First off, the scenario you detailed is happening in many urban areas. Crack houses are all over cities because the neighbors tolerate them or are not willing to take care of the issue themselves. I and my neighbors would not tolerate this because we don't tolerate the baggage that comes allong with it.
Second, I have no problem with a bar across the road or next door for that matter. My uncle owns a bar and I don't think that alcohol is evil.
Third, I could care less about OTB parlors because I don't care about gambling.
Fourth, I think that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. That would create a new source of tax income for the government. After all women have been doing it for years all over the world legally, it's called hooking up with a sugardaddy. The street walkers would not work my neighborhood, not enough traffic, and they would end up getting chased away by people anyway.
Most importantly, the government has no business protecting people from themselves or what goes on in the privacy of your home when it comes to consenting adults.
Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".
The Founders believed it much easier to control their own state than some government body hundreds of miles away; therefore, they weren't concerned about the power given to their own state.
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live. The USSC is the entitity that says our kids can't pray in school, can't display religious symbols, can't even dicuss political issues 30 days before an election!, must allow abortion, must allow sodomy, on and on.
Where do I go, Ryan Spock, to raise my kids the way I want? What state offers me the kind of life I want to live? Where's MY freedom, Ryan Spock?
Right, and the law allows ytou to take action against this crack house if you and your neighbors wish to. The law allows you to address the prostitute issue, or the bar, or the OTB parlor if you and your neighbors wish to.
If it doesn't bother you and your neighbors, fine.
I'm saying that the law similarly allows the people to address the issue of stores selling sex toys.
His wife needs them all for Christmas decorations.
A very good friend and co-worker confided in me 4-5 years ago that he had ED and could not take the magic pills because of his high blood pressure. He and his wife resorted to adult aids (as he put it) so as to scratch those itches that morally superior busybodies might call perversions.
They are still a monogamous couple in the good old moral southern tradition except they live in the North. I'd have no problem with them watching my daughter if I had to.
Please consider your position and remember the danger every time we allow government to regulate our private lives and no I am not a druggie, never have never will.
Hmmm, this sounds like it is coming from the "we live in a democracy and if the majority want.....blah, blah" when in fact we live in a Representative Republic so that the 3 foxes and 1 chicken don't vote on what's for dinner.
SC can do what they want you are correct (albeit only what the ever expanding federal government allows) but that does not make it right.
You'll never guess this German word for ornament (see URL).
;-)
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.