Replies

Wyoming, like all States, is prevented from writing legislation ["moral" or otherwise] that deprives persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
-- Prohibitive type laws [malum prohibitum] violate due process.

Why do you assume that any laws passed to regulate morality would be malum prohibitum and not malem se?

Regardless, while I tend to agree that malum prohibitum laws violate due process,

Tend?

they certainly seem popular with both the left and the right. From click-it-or-ticket, motorcycle helmet laws, smoking bans, and etc., they spawn like rabbits. I don't see many of them being overturned due to their debatable constitutionality.

So now you admit you find Malum Prohibitum - An act which supposedly is 'immoral' because it is decreed to be illegal; -- debatable.

Well, I don't agree. We've never given governments the power to decree what acts are to be immoral.

Common law has long established what are 'innately immoral acts', -- we don't need 'new' socialistic moral majorities dictating any more.

Malum in se - is an innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include perjury, theft, and murder, -- not motorcycle helmet 'laws', smoking bans, gun prohibitions, etc.
Yes...and by passing those laws are they not regulating morality? My point is that they are not necessarily passing malum prohibitum laws to regulate morality.

Regardless, while I tend to agree that malum prohibitum laws violate due process, Tend?

Yes tend. At a high percentage.

So now you admit you find Malum Prohibitum - An act which supposedly is 'immoral' because it is decreed to be illegal; -- debatable.

Certainly I hope it is still debatable as it is being done and needs to be stopped.

Well, I don't agree. We've never given governments the power to decree what acts are to be immoral. Common law has long established what are 'innately immoral acts', -- we don't need 'new' socialistic moral majorities dictating any more.

The people of Wyoming gave the Wyoming state government the power to regulate morality. That does not give them the power to usurp any powers and in fact could be argued that it doesn't infer any power that isn't specifically enumerated. All of that is beside the point however. By adopting english common law we did ourselves an injustice by not being forced to determine the underlying ethical principles on which they were founded. At the time of the founding it was far better understood then it is in contemporary society, however, had our founders not adopted the english common law system and had created their own we would have had some great debates and the underlying premise for all laws would have had to be justified. You know as well as I, in fact judging from your post history you know better then I, that some peoples rationalization for why something is immoral goes something like "It's immoral because it illegal, Why is it illegal? Because it's immoral". That isn't good reasoning obviously but the issue goes beyond Malum in se and Malum Prohibitum. What underlying ethical principle makes something Malum in se, or inherently immoral?