Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here's Why Ted Cruz Fought to Keep Sex toys illegal
Reason magazine ^ | April 13, 2016 | Damon Root

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bedroom; cruz; dildoted; election; lonestar67; taft; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141 next last
To: lonestar67

Sometimes people need to just mind their own damn business.


61 posted on 04/14/2016 10:25:00 AM PDT by Augie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Sounds like the worst of both worlds. You need to go to vast expenditure to file for cert?


62 posted on 04/14/2016 10:25:21 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

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.


63 posted on 04/14/2016 10:28:04 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

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? :-)


64 posted on 04/14/2016 10:29:45 AM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

did the toys have affirmative consent? (/s)


65 posted on 04/14/2016 10:32:55 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

“The state” == just who? Was there a referendum in Texas?


66 posted on 04/14/2016 10:33:33 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

He was, in general, the most experienced at soliciting.


67 posted on 04/14/2016 10:39:39 AM PDT by ChuteTheMall (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
“The state” == just who? Was there a referendum in Texas?

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.

68 posted on 04/14/2016 10:40:06 AM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Well sure, Cruz fought hard against sex toys. That’s my big issues by gigglygolly.


69 posted on 04/14/2016 10:47:59 AM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Lol. No one cares about sex questions
Billy Clinton is the best example


70 posted on 04/14/2016 10:50:11 AM PDT by South Dakota (crazy horse: I shall return again...in stone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

I presume the toys are necessary because he can’t the job done.


71 posted on 04/14/2016 11:06:33 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

If Cruz somehow gets the nomination, the media will make the election all about dildos and vibrators.


72 posted on 04/14/2016 11:09:40 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

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.


73 posted on 04/14/2016 11:10:37 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota
Lol. No one cares about sex questions Billy Clinton is the best example

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!

74 posted on 04/14/2016 11:25:13 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

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


75 posted on 04/14/2016 11:28:49 AM PDT by lonestar67 (Trump is anti-conservative / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

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.


76 posted on 04/14/2016 11:38:07 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Yawn


77 posted on 04/14/2016 11:39:45 AM PDT by South Dakota (crazy horse: I shall return again...in stone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lodi90; stephenjohnbanker; null and void; Buckeye McFrog; Extremely Extreme Extremist; vette6387; ..

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.


78 posted on 04/14/2016 12:01:19 PM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proust

ROFLMAO!!! Nice! Ted “Spanker” Cruz!


79 posted on 04/14/2016 12:06:00 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

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


80 posted on 04/14/2016 12:35:09 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Trump is anti-conservative / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson