I beg to differ. In 2012 they turned out the Julia vote by convincing them that Romney really WAS going to ban birth control. Can you see them if they think Ted is going to ban sex toys?
FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!
Posted on 04/14/2016 9:16:23 AM PDT by lonestar67
This is all fun stuff and will no doubt lead to some very clever jokes on The Daily Show. But there were also some very serious legal questions at stake. Namely, what limits does the U.S. Constitution place on the legislative power of state governments, and what role do federal judges play in enforcing those limits? Related to that, what sort of unenumerated rights (if any) are protected from state infringement by the 14th Amendment?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Sometimes people need to just mind their own damn business.
Sounds like the worst of both worlds. You need to go to vast expenditure to file for cert?
The 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause exist only to permit Congress to write civil right legislation to ENUMENUMERATE federal civil rights that State actors, and only State actors, cannot disparage. To say it exist for any other purpose is a misconstruction of the text.
So rather than existing to centralize power over rights, mainly into the federal courts, at the expense of all legislatures (including Congress) the “poi” clause exist to permit one legislature, Congress, to take steps to restrain others, the legislatures if the States, from exercising their police powers in ways contrary to specificly enumerated federal civil rights.
Article 4:Section 2:Clause 1 is the appropriate language applicable to the several States as concerns unenumerated rights, the 9th Amendment complementing it where the federal is involved; BUT, that body of a Privileges and Immunities is only what it would have been when the language was ratified. Three examples: sex outside of marriage, polygamy, or homosexual sex in any context whatsoever were commonly illegal among the several States that ratified the Constitution so there cannot be a P&I to engage in any of these.
A State may choose to no longer outlaw them, but there is no constitutional prohibition to them being considered unlawful by State Laws, or by federal laws applied in a Territory or covering a federal protectorate not under the jurisdiction of any State, or from such laws being renewed later.
This language was essentially an admonishment to the States to keep doing as they had been collectively doing: which ultimately boils down to whatever was not actually forbidden was lawful.
By contrast our current regulatory paragidm is rooted in the idea that only whatever is permitted is lawful, and everything else is not lawful.
The lawlessness of so-called “progressives” as well as those who first sought to impose administrative laws on this country runs deep (the former building on the latter).
Though all of the civil rights enumerated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 — the law whose passage actually made it needful to have the 14th’s “poi” clause and subsequently, after ratification of the 14th, was reauthorized on firm constitutional grounds — were based on our P&I as those stood when the Constitution was ratified it is not automatically the case that they must be in subsequent statutes.
One may ask why, if they were all the sort of rights expected to already be the duty of the several States to uphold it was deemed necessary to enumerate them in an administrative law sense, the response being that prior to the 14th Amendment any violation of A4:S2:C1 P&I was a matter under the jurisdiction of the Court, there being no direct action for Congress to undertake if a State were actively disparaging such rights. The 14th Amendment created a Power for Congress so that it would not have to wait on the unpredictable ways of the courts, dependant on suits being brought and all that as they are.
In this it may be observed that the 14th Amendment, when not misconstructed as the modern courts have done, acts to selectively limit in subsequent, unspecified legislation the power of government to injure its citizens through abuse of their police powers ... not to empower the federal government to busybody itself at the whims of justices over the several States (their laws), or the federal to involve itself between citizens or between privately held entities and citizens.
Ted was Solicitor-General for the state of Texas. Texas passed a law. The law was challenged. The state directed Ted to defend the law in court. Ted did his job as directed.
Any questions? :-)
did the toys have affirmative consent? (/s)
“The state” == just who? Was there a referendum in Texas?
He was, in general, the most experienced at soliciting.
My guess would be the state legislature. But that really is immaterial to the main question here. As long as the law was legally passed and signed by the governor, as Solicitor General it wad Ted's job to defend the law in court if asked to do so. What he thought about the law is immaterial, and how the law was passed is immaterial, as long as it was a legal method to pass the law.
I find it funny that so many seem to want to bash Ted for defending this law, yet many of those same people were outraged when Obama's Solicitor General refused to defend laws like DOMA, or Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop. 8 in CA. Let's be consistent people.
Well sure, Cruz fought hard against sex toys. That’s my big issues by gigglygolly.
Lol. No one cares about sex questions
Billy Clinton is the best example
I presume the toys are necessary because he can’t the job done.
If Cruz somehow gets the nomination, the media will make the election all about dildos and vibrators.
You have it backwards.
The Texas Court ruled against the Texas-toy law.
Ted appealed to the Appellate Court, lost.
Ted was going to take it to SCOTUS.
He’s the one that was making a federal case out of the local issue.
Good news is that Cruz has consistently defended firearms which you may know are actually specified in the 2nd amendment.
Absent such specification, states have a right to regulate under the 10th amendment
Your argument involved ‘public health’.
The big issue here is use of public funds.
Was this the MOST important thing going on in TX at this time?
Really?
Not the drug gangs, drug sales, terrorism, or more importantly OVER extension of federal authority? Nope? None of those? Nope! Sex toys. THOSE are public enemy number one.
And the argument didn’t involve ‘we can because we’re a state’. The argument was ‘because they’ll enable incest’ or some such twaddle.
Sounds like the holy rollers who wanted to control the sales of tampons.
Yawn
Ted Cruz Once Argued That Americans Have No ‘Due Process’ Right to Masturbate/Title is no Joke
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3420743/posts
The above stories and ones similar is what the general public will be seeing.
Texas archaic law overturned thanks to both State & Appellate Court 5th.
ROFLMAO!!! Nice! Ted “Spanker” Cruz!
All products face regulations from states.
The fact that there are sex products does not exempt them from regulation
It may be fun like junior high to mock this regulation because they’re sex toys but grow up.
These things can be regulated
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.