Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by LightedCandle
I believe they gave them the authority to regulate interstate commerce, as that power was understood and intended at the time it was granted.
I believe that's within the pervue of the States. Have I given you any reason to believe that I don't think it is?
Okay, then let’s take child pornography out of the equation all together and stick to regular pornography. Let’s say under your way of doing things that Utah for instance decides to ban the sale and possession of Hustler magazine. What happens when someone buys the magazine in another state and brings it to Utah? Does the equal protection clause apply or not?
Sounds like you're having trouble minding your own business which is your addiction. You goofs think you're going to stop any "vice" that's been with mankind for all the millenia are just too dumb to even carry on a conversation. The coming anarchy will cure you of your addiction (read that perverted need) to continuosly stick your nose where it doesn't belong. Have fun with that. Blackbird.
Right, but the only insight you can give into how ONE of them understood it is from a letter that Madison wrote almost a half a century later. Do you actually think that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a day when interstate commerce was the norm in nearly 100% of goods sold in this country? Do you think that they envisioned a day when a person on a computer could buy something from overseas with the click of a mouse without the state government being able to even know about it?
Equal protection from what? If Utah decides to ban the sale and posession, and you come into Utah in posession of one, I think that ought to be between you and the state of Utah.
So, the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless?
That's all I've given in one post on this thread. I can give you more, but none of it is in any substantial disagreement with what Madison wrote. 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?
Do you actually think that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a day when interstate commerce was the norm in nearly 100% of goods sold in this country? Do you think that they envisioned a day when a person on a computer could buy something from overseas with the click of a mouse without the state government being able to even know about it?
I think the Founding Fathers knew it was unlikey they could forsee what would happen very far into the future, and that is why they made provisions for amending the Constitution.
Yep, it still makes sense.
That's one of those all-or-nothing false dilemma fallacies.
The truth is that Ed couldn’t care less what you do in your bedroom. He’s concerned about the ripe addiction of pornography that is nearly pervasive in our society and the ultimate impact this addiction has on society.
Scientific studies show that a teenager addicted to porn could seriously impair the development of his cerebral cortex. 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.
We have no intention of outlawing pornography but we believe that the civil litigation will bring public awareness to the issue and make is much more difficult for producers and distributors to profit from an addiction that is one of the primary causes of family breakup today.
It's strange then that Madison never attempted to advance this argument before John Marshall.
So, even though the possibility is so remote as to be effectively non-existent, you would support the right of a state to legalize child pornography?
I've told you I'm not chasing that red herring. Go play "gotcha" with somebody else if that's what you're here for.
When would he have ever needed to?
Please cite the Scientific Studies, and who funded them.
Thanks
A reading of the summary of these “scientific studies” as posted above leads me to think when one views images of people engaged in a natural biological function (sex), their brain doesn’t take the time to run all the implications of said sex through every possible scenario. In other words, it sounds like a bold statement of the obvious.
>> Will you read the article, for heaven’s sake.
I read it ... twice. Thanks for the slightly condescending suggestion, though.
>> This is not about you and the missus seeing an explicit recorded romp. This is about stuff that’s pure poison, training videos for predation, as well as conspiracy by pedophiles.
The article makes no apparent distinction between the viewing of explicit material by consenting adults within the confines of a healthy marriage, and what you call “pure poison”.
The article simply states, “We envision a society where the negative consequences of producing and distributing pornography far outweigh the financial benefits.” It doesn’t mention “training videos for predation” or a pedophiliac conspiracy ... except for a vague reference to children viewing “scenes of brutality” (which I am, of course, against ... but I am also willing to take responsibility for protecting my own kids).
If this is, in fact, about “pure poision”, predators and pedophiles ... then they need to re-edit their article, because that is certainly not what I gathered (particularly since pedophiles and predators are never mentioned ... addiction, “vow breaking” and spouses becoming disconnected is mentioned). Predators and pedophiles deserve anything and everything that is coming to them ... I’d even support execution for repeat offenders.
What I do not support is taking away the liberties of law abiding citizens in order to punish the law-breaking citizens (pedophiles, etc.). If this is, as I suspect, about protecting my marriage and my children from pornography ... I can handle that myself, thanks.
This sounds like an attack, not on predation or pedophilia, but on the freedom of American adults to view whatever they like (explicit or otherwise), and the freedom of American corporations to produce that material for which there is a demand.
If they want to attack predators ... their attack should be more focused on the predators themselves, not on legally-produced explicit material.
H
When would he have ever needed to?
You're joking right?
No, I want an answer. This is further evidence of how liberal the so-called libertarieans are, refusing to answer a yes or no question.
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.