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.
Ed Meese wants to be in your bedroom!
(Sorry for the horrible mental image)
Just go away, Eddie.
Wow!! The Volstead Act was passed by the Framers?!?! I never knew. Man those guys must have been old if they were up for passing that 130 years later. A fine example of Progressives in action however
You were talking about Congress passing legislation. Do you somehow think that Congress overstepped it’s powers by passing the Volstead Act?
I'm a missing-bristle libertarian who doesn't exercise any of the named vices.
Civil litigation against porn is like trying to legislate against hurricanes. Even if it somehow succeeds in a nanny-state court, laws against porn will not be enforceable. The less silly laws the better off we all are as a free people.
Are you proposing a constitutional amendment to ban pornography?
Not at all. Nor am I trying to interfere with the free speech of those people who might want to. What I am trying to do is demonstrate that regardless of what anyone thought of Prohibition, Congress and the states were well withing their rights to enact it.
What Congress and the States can do and what Congress can do are not the same thing.
I hope you never run or do other strenuous aerobic exercise.
I don’t disagree.
Then don’t equate them.
I’m not. Why don’t you try to answer my questions in #279.
For the most part I would agree. Most of the examples you mentioned (kids, animals) involve a lack of legal consent, so even a staunch libertarian would agree with banning them. I suppose that torture would be a little more contentious, since it's conceivable that some actors might voluntarily submit to being abused. Think of "Fear Factor" or mixed martial arts competitions.
...But on the flip side, I think the 14th Amendment (and how it's been interpreted) broke the natural vent that the Founding Fathers allowed, which was to allow states to pass lows covering a smaller segment of the population that would not be acceptable at the Federal level for everyone. And that's how I think these things need to be handled.
I find a federalist approach to be much more palatable than a national ban, that's for sure. Personally I don't believe states or localities should be involved in regulating what we typically call "vices" but I can respect your resistance to using the 14th to prevent them from doing so. Still, I think the 14th should play some role in protecting the rights of the people from abuse by the states.
...It's drawing that line in the muddly middle where I think democracy, slowed through the structure of a republic, needs to have room to play these things out.
I agree with that so long as the matter in question is in the public arena...meaning visible to the public or immediately affecting the public. If the matter is private, I don't think government at any level should get involved as long as rights aren't being violated.
So a law prohibiting profane t-shirts in public is one thing. A law prohibiting the possession of profane books is another matter.
...Yes, protecting fundamental rights is importantant. But so is giving people say over the standards of their community and some control over the quality of life there.
Sure, but relying on the law is not the only way to promote community standards and to control the quality of life. Building strong community institutions, using persuasion and public awareness, and excercising your right to free association are all ways to promote the good things and resist the bad things in a community. Typically, I believe these methods are superior to government solutions, even at the local level.
Consider racism, for example. The law has played some role in addressing racism in the public sphere, but I'd say the bulk of progress in race relations has come about from persuasion and cultural change from institutions outside of the government. That's not to say racism has been eliminated completely, but it's certainly been greatly reduced over the last 50 years and can no longer be expressed openly without serious consequences. Yet no law had to be passed against racist speech or racist private behavior....
What, the tacit assertion that because the Volstead Act was legitimate legistlation, whatever it is your asking for has to be legitimate, too? Unless you’re wanting a constitutional amendment, you’re equating what Congress and the States can do with what Congress can do again.
No. I meant to answer my questions concerning child pornography.
The answer is, the chances of any state actually legalizing child pornography are so remote that the question is nothing but a red herring, and I’m not going to waste my time with it.
Good idea. It makes far more sense to spend your time telling yourself that the Founding Fathers would conclude that pornography produced in another country and sold over the internet was not interstate commerce.
No this is a moral issue and the Father of the Constitution stated exactly where this issue belonged. With the states
Could it be said, that the contentious issue of abortion, pretty much became the contentious issue it is when the states had their power over it, supplanted by the Supreme Court thus rendering moot, the desires of a very large percentage of the population wholly against the idea of killing off generations of babies.
Are our hands clean when our government allows baby killing as a right. Sure bastardizes the meaning of Rights as the Founding Fathers understood them, and sucks the now 50/50 pro/con population into tacit approval. The Lord knows the desires of the heart, so I doubt there will be punishment for that which we have little control of, or do we have so little control?
You make it sound like the only thing you want to regulate is child pornography being brought in from other countries. That's not what you're after, is it?
You seem to think that the Founding Fathers didn’t really give the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
But what do you think about child pornography produced in another country and transmitted via the internet to the US, who has the authority to regulate that?
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.