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.
Bull. I am libertarian and I recognize 'the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people'. The federal government does not have the right nor responsibility to engage in the moral affairs of the citizens of the respective states.
bttt
Does the federal government have the right to regulate interstate commerce?
Better yet, since this is a PRIVATE group we are talking about, do PRIVATE groups have a right to advance their agenda?
Yeah but who cares what libertarians say. ;-)
Then why are there murderers in federal prisons?
Do not the states have laws against murder? The federal government doesn’t need those laws. The Constitution is specific. It is a list of powers given to the federal government, not a list of implied rights or protections the federal government should provide except in very specific instances.
Or dungeon masters, for that matter?
What constitutes a "federal crime"? In the cop shows as soon as certain lines are crossed crimes become a federal case. Is that against the constitution in your mind?
Or ghosts. They only have a vote in the Dem party. :-D
Ah yes, the safe harbor for all authoritarians. Interstate commerce, interstate commerce!! I swear y'all should have it tattooed on your foreheads. Yes the Constitution does cover interstate commerce but what is being sold? And what harm, physical harm, is it doing? I could claim the same thing about cable television. I imagine there's some loser sitting in his altogethers watching too much HBO. Better ban it!!
No this is a moral issue and the Father of the Constitution stated exactly where this issue belonged. With the states
Better yet, since this is a PRIVATE group we are talking about, do PRIVATE groups have a right to advance their agenda?
When trying to influence the federal government to pass legislation that will further destroy the intended balance of the Constitution, no they do not.
*************
You're quite right, narses. It's sad.
My creator did not make me so weak as to be unable to resist the clutches of whatever the vice-of-the-week is right now.
Profound comments, lost on those who don’t appreciate the wisdom, power, and intelligence of The Creator.
Pornography is SOLD, it is a commercial industry and it is sold across state lines.
When trying to influence the federal government to pass legislation that will further destroy the intended balance of the Constitution, no they do not.
So, you do not think opposition to pornography (or drugs, prostitution, etc.) is protected free speech? THAT is very telling.
“Better yet, since this is a PRIVATE group we are talking about, do PRIVATE groups have a right to advance their agenda?
When trying to influence the federal government to pass legislation that will further destroy the intended balance of the Constitution, no they do not.”
HUH say what???? Perhaps you should view less porn and read more of the Constitution.
“The federal government doesn’t need those laws. The Constitution is specific. It is a list of powers given to the federal government, not a list of implied rights or protections the federal government should provide except in very specific instances.”
What about murder committed on Federal property or places like Indian reservations?
I’m all about limiting government but eliminating the federal government will surely lead to our destruction.
And it falls under a morality issue doesn't it? So I suppose we should just ignore Mr. Madison and legislate all morality at the national level. That 'demon alcohol' too. This is the mating call of the Progressives of the early 20th century. Do you not think there was interstate trade in the 18th century? Do you not think some of what was traded was considered immoral to some? And for some reason Congress didn't go into a frenzy of passing legislation on it.
So, you do not think opposition to pornography (or drugs, prostitution, etc.) is protected free speech? THAT is very telling.
Ah, putting words into my mouth. That's good. No, I do believe you can stand on the street corner and say anything and everything. However when you cross the line and lobby the federal government to legislate morality (a responsibility of the separate and sovereign states) you should be rightly ignored.
We need more samples of what is not porn.
Indeed.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829 For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Today we have:
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas
And the authrotarians can't get enough of it.
HUH?! What exactly was the Volstead Act if it wasn't legislation?
No, I do believe you can stand on the street corner and say anything and everything. However when you cross the line and lobby the federal government to legislate morality (a responsibility of the separate and sovereign states) you should be rightly ignored.
Got it, lobbying the federal government on moral issues is unprotected speech.
Since you think that the individual states should be able to determine if child pornography is a crime, what happens when one of them legalizes child pornography? Does the equal protection clause still apply if someone legally purchases child pornography and brings it into another state?
Read Federalist #45 and tell me where morality was intended to lay under the Constitution. And no I don't view porn
What about murder committed on Federal property or places like Indian reservations?
First things first. Federal property (at least most of it such as land) should be sold off immediately. There's no need (and no right under original intent) whatsoever for the federal government to own the land they do. Laws on that land would revert back to the separate and sovereign states.
Indian reservations are a special case and their needs should be met first and foremost as treaties between two nations
I’m all about limiting government but eliminating the federal government will surely lead to our destruction.
At no point did I say eliminate the federal government. However if we were to return it to its original limitations many would believe it was gone altogether
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.