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.
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.
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.
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?