Alabama ban on sex toys is struck down as unconstitutional

Associated Press | October 11, 2002

[HAL9000]

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) -- An Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys was struck down by a federal judge as a violation of the right to privacy.

"The fundamental right of privacy, long recognized by the Supreme Court as inherent among our constitutional protections, incorporates a right to sexual privacy,'' U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. said Wednesday.

He said the state did not prove it has a legitimate interest in banning the sale of sex devices for use in private, consensual relationships between adults.

The 1998 law -- part of a package of legislation strengthening the state's obscenity law -- banned the sale of devices designed for "the stimulation of human genital organs.'' It was challenged by six women who either sell sex aids or said they need them for sexual gratification.

Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

[FF578]

The had no problem banning Pornography, Fornication, Adultery, Blasphemy, and Sodomy. Why would they not ban vibrators?

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

Look at what John Adams, John Q Adams and Henry were saying.

Let's break this down bit by bit so you libertarians can understand it.

Lets start with John Adam's Quote:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."

(He is saying that no government can exist where human passions are not controlled by morality and religion. No laws would matter, anarchy would reign if the people were not moral and religious.)

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

(This speaks for itself. The people at the founding of our nation were moral and religious. They would have never tolerated the immorality of the hippie generation. Our Consitution was ment for moral people. Not hippies.)

Let's look at what John Q Adams said:

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct."

(This goes to show that our nation was not libertarian or liberal at it's founding. Most people realized that God's law is first, the Nation's second.)

Lets Look at Henry's quote:

"Bad men cannot make good citizens."

(Henry is not talking about lawbreakers here, he is talking about immoral, indecent people. People who do not follow Almighty God. People who think they can make their own decisions of right and wrong.)

A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."

(Simply put, Unbridled liberty is not freedom at all.)

[FF578]

The founding fathers never outlawed any weapon or any object, nor did they even think about it.

WRONG!

The Founders outlawed pornography.

Every state had a law prohibiting pornography. Here is a Case from Pennsylvania The defendents were convicted of showing a pornographic image, the appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with the Libertarian argument that they had a right to privacy, this is what they court had to say:

--------------------------------------------------

The Commonwealth v Sharpless, 2 Serg & R. 91 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1815)

Jesse Sharpless, John Haines, George Haines, John Steel, Ephraim Martin, and --- Mayo, designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires in a certain house there scandalously did exhibit and show for money a certain lewd obscene painting, representing a man in an obscene and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth, and other] citizens of this commonwealth offending [the] dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The defendants have been convicted, upon their own confession, of conduct indicative of great moral depravity This court is invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punished criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable. Hence, it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in its nature and by its example, it tends to the corruption of morals; although it be not committed in public.

The defendants are charged with exhibiting and showing for money, a lewd and obscene painting. A picture tends to excite lust, as strongly as a writing; and the showing of picture is as much a publication as the selling of a book. If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of the city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. In the eye of the law, this would be a publication, and a most pernicious one.

Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indict able, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences. No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.

--------------------------------------------------

The Founders Outlawed Sodomy:

-------------------------------------------------

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:

Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:

Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws,  1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).

------------------------------------------------

The Founders Outlawed Blasphemy:

------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:

The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.

The Prosecuting Attorney argued:

While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:

Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .

We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.

Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:

Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.

The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.

The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...

We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.

To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.

No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .

Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.

While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.

-----------------------------------

Every State also had laws against adultery and fornication. In Fact Virginia made Adultery a Capital Crime.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

What should one expect from a leadership class which has as its geatest goods; eating, drinking, copulating, evacuation and snoring.(at public expense)

[flyervet]

So, in NC, LEOs are empowered to enforce common law? I bet the prosecutors love you -- aggravating the overloaded docket with niggling cases involving parking teenagers and rubber sex toys. I bet more than one scumsucking unrepentant criminal has gotten off on a technicality his lawyers dreamed up while you kept the caseload pipeline overflowing.

Got nothing better to do in NC? Look over the state line to VA, and even farther, to MD, where the LEOs are involved in multiple cases involving a sniper. If you've got nothing better to do in NC than hunt for kids necking in the back seat, then obviously, NC has too many LEOs chasing too few real cases. Perhaps the good people of NC could save a little public money by eliminating one LEO's job.

Oh, yes, didn't the Taliban have an governmental arm called the "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice?" I think I know where you can get a job when the good people of NC give you your walking papers, fella. And I'll buy you a plane ticket to get there. I'll even make it first class.

[FF578]

Yes NC LEO's are empowered to enforce Common Law. Example there are common law offenses. Common Law Robbery for example.

But this has nothing to do with what I am talking about. North Carolina has a STATUTE PROHBITING Crimes Against Nature, Fornication and Adultery. As a law enforcement officer it is a DUTY to ENFORCE The Law.

If you don't like the law then have it changed. The law written by elected legislators says clearly:

§ 14-177. Crime against nature.

If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

Just because you do not like a law doesn't mean you have a right to disregard it. If you don't like a law work to change it. That is the way the system works. I know the libertarians think they can disregard law as they see fit, promote immorality, and live in anarchy. Problem is the rest of society doesn't see it that way.

Teenagers do not have a "Right" to have sex outside of wedlock. Our Founders did not permit ANYONE to have sex outside of wedlock. You fail to answer my questions over and over again.

What made America wrong from 1789-1960? Where did this new enlightenment came from from 1960-Present? Can you explain why the founders were wrong, why the states were wrong, why this nation was wrong for almost 200 years, yet a bunch of dope smoking coward hippie punks suddenly found new enlightenment? What made great men like Washington, Adams, Henry, and Hamilton wrong and little draft dodgeing, dope smoking college punks right?

I bet you are not willing to answer the tough questions.

[Britton J Wingfield]

HB 2016 repealed all archaic sex laws in Arizona.

The debate on that one was priceless.

[Britton J Wingfield]

Our Founders did not permit ANYONE to have sex outside of wedlock.

Franklin and Jefferson must have been masters at evading arrest.

[flyervet]

I believe that, if I have a look in a law library, I shall find that robbery is a statutory crime in NC, and would be so prosecuted.

BTW, your citation of 14-177 does not define "crime against nature," which is what I'd expect from an LEO who's more interested in the sex lives of others than in (pick one):

a) armed robbers

b) car thieves

c) burglars

d) arsonists

e) drunk drivers

f) snipers

NC has STATUTES PROHIBITING those crimes, too, but you have obviously decided to focus on the crimes that offend your sense of moral outrage, as opposed to crimes of violence against citizens. How fortunate the citizens of NC are to have you looking out for their moral safety. Hope nobody gets burgled while you're up at Lover's Lane, busting the local high-school hero and the captain of the cheerleading squad. Better to have an arsonist burn down the whole town than to let one guy get a little.

Further, just because you prefer a given law does not mean that you can attempt to enforce it to the exclusion of other laws. Bear that in mind, "Officer."

"Teenagers do not have a "Right" to have sex outside of wedlock."

And LEOs don't have the right to ignore violent crimes in order to impose their moralistic agendas on citizens.

"Our Founders did not permit ANYONE to have sex outside of wedlock."

Paging Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Paging Mr. Jefferson and Miss Hemings to the white courtesy phone, please.

If it were that important, why isn't it in the Constitution? Why would the Founders leave such an important matter up to the states" Further, have you ever heard of "Bundling?"

"You fail to answer my questions over and over again."

Firstly, you have not asked me any. Secondly, you've got a lot of nerve demanding that I answer questions you haven't asked when you dodge mine.

"What made America wrong from 1789-1960?"

I don't believe I said that "America" was "wrong." I am discussing your apparent obsession with preventing what you consider to be aberrant sexual activity in a state where you claim to be a law enforcement officer. Would you care to keep to the topic, or are you going to continue dodging my questions?

"Where did this new enlightenment came from from 1960-Present?"

Obviously, this is of interest to you, yet I have not commented on it. If you wish to engage me in discussion, then you must focus more closely on the subject. Please try harder.

"Can you explain why the founders were wrong, why the states were wrong, why this nation was wrong for almost 200 years,"

These are your words, not mine. Would you kindly read my posts more carefully?

"yet a bunch of dope smoking coward hippie punks suddenly found new enlightenment?"

This is a red herring. What does drug use have to do with a discussion of private sexual behavior?

"What made great men like Washington, Adams, Henry, and Hamilton wrong and little draft dodgeing, dope smoking college punks right?"

I don't believe I have asserted anything of the kind. However, I have asked what makes you different from the Taliban. Would you please answer that question?

(note for those keeping score at home: the answer is "the Taliban shoot the people they catch being immoral. I don't, but I think it's a pretty good idea.")

"I bet you are not willing to answer the tough questions."

I bet you can't keep to the subject, and will persist in trying to steer this topic away from the matter at hand. Muddying the waters is only one way to dodge one's way out of a difficult debating position.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

That picture is perfect for this story. LOL! Too funny!

[andy_card]

Where do you draw the line?

You don't, as long as no one is being hurt.

Should they be able to sell blow up little boys too?

Absolutely. As long as the little boys are made of polyurathane, and not flesh.

[stands2reason]

Get over the idea that you have to be "libertarian" to oppose stupid laws that protect nobody. How does a no-dildo law make the world a better place?

[stands2reason]

Obviously, if you believe you shouldn't be arrested and publicly punished by the state by having sex with your boyfriend, you're a libertarian.

[stands2reason]

So THAT'S how you get carpal-tunnel syndrome!

[DooDahhhh]

Man your pictures of Jesus is right up there with another poster today who said "Goober"
got a nobel peace prize!

[DooDahhhh]

Guess this means that you are not going to order anything.

[ThinkDifferent]

Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed

Not a fan of the 1st Amendment, are you?

[LowOiL]

Should they be able to sell blow up little boys too?

Absolutely. As long as the little boys are made of polyurathane, and not flesh. ---->Andy_Card

[andy_card]

Absolutely. As long as the little boys are made of polyurathane, and not flesh. ---->Andy_Card

What's the point of reposting my comment? It is not, to my knowledge, illegal to be attracted to young boys. It is sick, disgusting, etc., but not illegal. As a matter of public policy, I'd much rather have those nuts fooling around with polyeurathane balloons, than rape altar boys. Apparently you think otherwise.

[FF578]

I believe that, if I have a look in a law library, I shall find that robbery is a statutory crime in NC, and would be so prosecuted.

Wrong. North Carolina has a statute for ARMED Robbery. Common Law Robbery is different.

The Statute for ARMED Robbery is:

§ 14-87. Robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapons.

(a) Any person or persons who, having in possession or with the use or threatened use of any firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means, whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened, unlawfully takes or attempts to take personal property from another or from any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place where there is a person or persons in attendance, at any time, either day or night, or who aids or abets any such person or persons in the commission of such crime, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.

The elements of this crime require a weapon to be used or implied. Common law robbery would not fit this.

II. COMMON-LAW ROBBERY.

Elements of Offense. - Robbery at common law is the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear. State v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E.2d 355 (1961); State v. Lawrence, 262 N.C. 162, 136 S.E.2d 595 (1964); State v. Norris, 264 N.C. 470, 141 S.E.2d 869 (1965); State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208, 159 S.E.2d 525 (1968); State v. Faulkner, 5 N.C. App. 113, 168 S.E.2d 9 (1969); State v. Moore, 279 N.C. 455, 183 S.E.2d 546 (1971); State v. Osborne, 13 N.C. App. 420, 185 S.E.2d 593 (1972); State v. Hoover, 14 N.C. App. 154, 187 S.E.2d 453, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 316, 188 S.E.2d 899 (1972); State v. Black, 286 N.C. 191, 209 S.E.2d 458 (1974); State v. Dixon, 34 N.C. App. 388, 238 S.E.2d 183 (1977); State v. Melvin, 57 N.C. App. 503, 291 S.E.2d 885, cert. denied, 306 N.C. 748, 295 S.E.2d 484 (1982).

Robbery is the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, without his consent or against his will, by violence or intimidation. State v. Smith, 268 N.C. 167, 150 S.E.2d 194 (1966); State v. Council, 6 N.C. App. 397, 169 S.E.2d 921 (1969); State v. Bailey, 278 N.C. 80, 178 S.E.2d 809 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 S. Ct. 293, 34 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1972); State v. Young, 16 N.C. App. 101, 191 S.E.2d 369 (1972); State v. Rivens, 299 N.C. 385, 261 S.E.2d 867 (1980); State v. Chapman, 49 N.C. App. 103, 270 S.E.2d 524 (1980).

Common-law robbery is the felonious, nonconsensual taking of money or personal property from the person or presence of another by means of violence or fear. State v. Smith, 305 N.C. 691, 292 S.E.2d 264, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056, 103 S. Ct. 474, 74 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1982).

The essential elements of the offense of common-law robbery are the taking with the felonious intent of defendant to permanently deprive the owner of his property and to convert the owner's property to his own use. State v. McCullough, 79 N.C. App. 541, 340 S.E.2d 132, cert. denied, 316 N.C. 556, 344 S.E.2d 13 (1986).

Common-law robbery is the taking and carrying away of personal property of another from his person or presence without his consent by violence or by putting him in fear and with the intent to deprive him of its use permanently, the taker knowing that he was not entitled to take it. State v. McCullough, 79 N.C. App. 541, 340 S.E.2d 132, cert. denied, 316 N.C. 556, 344 S.E.2d 13 (1986).

Not Defined by Statute. - Robbery, a common-law offense not defined by statute in North Carolina, is merely an aggravated form of larceny. State v. Smith, 268 N.C. 167, 150 S.E.2d 194 (1966); State v. Council, 6 N.C. App. 397, 169 S.E.2d 921 (1969); State v. Hullender, 8 N.C. App. 41, 173 S.E.2d 581 (1970); State v. Chapman, 49 N.C. App. 103, 270 S.E.2d 524 (1980).

Highway robbery is a common-law offense and is frequently denominated "common-law robbery." State v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E.2d 355 (1961).

Felonious Intent Is Essential Element. - An essential element of the offense of common-law robbery is a felonious taking, i.e., a taking with the felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner of his property permanently and to convert it to the use of the taker. State v. Norris, 264 N.C. 470, 141 S.E.2d 869 (1965); State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528, 144 S.E.2d 572 (1965).

The statutes do define a punishment for common-law robbery:

§ 14-87.1. Punishment for common-law robbery.

Robbery as defined at common law, other than robbery with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as defined by G.S. 14-87, shall be punishable as a Class G felony.

Common law robbery would be a robbery where no deadly weapon was used, but force and intimidation was. Lets say that Someone pushed you down on the ground and said hand me your wallet. That would be common law robbery.

BTW, your citation of 14-177 does not define "crime against nature," which is what I'd expect from an LEO who's more interested in the sex lives of others than in (pick one):

Well the Courts do define it.

Definition. - The crime against nature is sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature. It includes acts with animals and acts between humans per anum and per os. State v. Chance, 3 N.C. App. 459, 165 S.E.2d 31 (1969); State v. Copeland, 11 N.C. App. 516, 181 S.E.2d 722, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 512, 183 S.E.2d 688 (1971); State v. Wright, 27 N.C. App. 263, 218 S.E.2d 511, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 733, 220 S.E.2d 622 (1975).

This section is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 298 N.C. 303, 259 S.E.2d 304 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, 100 S. Ct. 1593, 63 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).

Persons of ordinary intelligence would conclude a fellatio between a man and a woman would be classified as a crime against nature and forbidden by this section. This keeps it from being unconstitutionally vague. State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 298 N.C. 303, 259 S.E.2d 304 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, 100 S. Ct. 1593, 63 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).

Conduct declared criminal by this section is sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature. State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 122 S.E.2d 396 (1961); State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965).

Scope of Section. - This section includes all kindred acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified. State v. Griffin, 175 N.C. 767, 94 S.E. 678 (1917); State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965); State v. Wright, 27 N.C. App. 263, 218 S.E.2d 511, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 733, 220 S.E.2d 622 (1975).

This section includes unnatural intercourse between male and male. State v. Fenner, 166 N.C. 247, 80 S.E. 970 (1914).

This section includes acts with animals and acts between humans per anum and per os. State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965); State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978).

This section is broad enough to include in the crime against nature other forms of the offense than sodomy and buggery. State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965); State v. Wright, 27 N.C. App. 263, 218 S.E.2d 511, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 733, 220 S.E.2d 622 (1975).

The crime against nature includes a consensual fellatio between a man and a woman. State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 298 N.C. 303, 259 S.E.2d 304 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, 100 S. Ct. 1593, 63 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).

In this jurisdiction crime against nature embraces sodomy, buggery and bestiality as those offenses were known and defined at common law. State v. O'Keefe, 263 N.C. 53, 138 S.E.2d 767 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 985, 85 S. Ct. 1355, 14 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1965); State v. Stokes, 1 N.C. App. 245, 161 S.E.2d 53, rev'd on other grounds, 274 N.C. 409, 163 S.E.2d 770 (1968).

Though penetration by or of a sexual organ is an essential element of the crime, the crime against nature is not limited to penetration by the male sexual organ. State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978).

This section condemns crimes against nature whether committed against adults or children. State v. Copeland, 11 N.C. App. 516, 181 S.E.2d 722, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 512, 183 S.E.2d 688 (1971).

As for your other nonsense claims...

I am not more interested in "other's sex lives" than murders, robbers, thieves ect... I can tell you more people are arrested for other types of crimes than the Crimes Against Nature offense.

The same arguments that you are using against the Crimes Against Nature offense are the same arguments that you libertarians use for the drug laws. Do you honestly want law enforcement officers selectively enforcing laws? What if one officer decides to enforce laws selectively only against libertarians? I bet you wouldn't like that. Laws must be enforced equally. Some officers only charge homosexuals with the Crimes Against Nature offense and give teenage heterosexuals "parking" a lesser charge or a warning. As much as I can't stand homosexuals, (I believe homosexuality should be a capital offense.) The law is the law, I can't make up law and enforce it the way I want. The law says Crimes against nature is a felony. Period. It is not right to enforce the law unequally. If you charge one person with the crime, then charge all those who meet the elements of the crime. Equal enforcement. Not Selective.

What you want is the law to be enforced the way you see fit, not the way it is written. That is not how the system works. As a law enforcement officer you take an oath to enforce the law equally as it is written. You don't get to select what laws you like and disregard those you don't.

I am sorry if that offends your libertarian anarchy world-view, but LEO's don't get to decide what laws to enforce and what laws to disregard. If you have a problem with a law, our system has a method for changing it. Elect people that will pass laws that you agree with. That is the remedy I have, and the remedy you have. I can't go changing and enforcing law, but I can vote, I can write my represenatives, just as you can.

You seem to think that I go out searching for people committing the Crimes Against Nature offenses and forget about all other crime. WRONG. It is you who are muddying the waters with red herrings, not me. During patrol if you come across a suspicious vehicle parked alone in a dark lot with movement inside any officer is going to check it out. I don't go searching for any one type of crime at the exclusion of others, but when I come across it, I have a job to do.

As for your trashing of Jefferson with liberal propaganda.

You are repeating Probably the most notorious accusation against Thomas Jefferson is the persistent allegation that he secretly took a mulatto slave named Sally Hemings (or Hemmings) as a mistress, and fathered several children by her.

The charge was first made in September 1802 (during Jefferson's first term as president) by a Scottish immigrant named James T. Caller, an embittered alcoholic and hypochondriac. Writing in a Richmond newspaper, Caller cited no evidence for his accusation, merely claiming that it was "well known." On later occasions he changed details about how the affair allegedly began and the number of children supposedly produced by it.

To those who knew Jefferson, his high moral standards and his deep devotion to his dead wife's memory, the entire story was absurd and contemptible. Nevertheless, it soon gained widespread circulation and many believers. Today it is occasionally given credence by black or leftist academics.

Jefferson never replied publicly to the charge. In a letter to a fri in June 1816, he wrote, "I should have fancied myself half guilty had I condesced to put pen to paper in refutation of their falsehoods, or drawn to them respect by any notice from myself." Years later his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, maintained that Sally's children were fathered by a nephew of Thomas Jefferson named Peter Carr, thus suggesting an additional reason for his silence.

Serious scholars of Jefferson's life reject the Hemings story. University of Virginia professor Merrill D. Peterson, a prominent Jefferson specialist, commented in his comprehensive biography of the third president: ". . . It is difficult to imagine him caught up in a miscegenous relationship. Such a mixture of the races, such a ruthless exploitation of the master-slave relationship, revolted his whole being." (Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, p. 707.)

You still fail to answer my questions.

My point remains clear consistantly. The founders established this nation on Christian Principles. They understood that morality and virtue were the building blocks of society, and that no person can be permitted to disrupt that foundation. Libertarians and Liberals are the revisionists, they do everything they can to paint the founders as hedonists who believed everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Nothing supports this hypothesis. Nothing.

The quotes from the founders, The Statutory law and Case law of the Day all support the fact that this nation was built on godly principles. The liberals hate that fact, and do everything they can to muddy the waters.

Our Founders had no problem establishing laws that legislated morality. The Court decisions said it clearly time and time again: The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.

Their words echo in history:

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. John Jay

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris

"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn

Nothing you say will change the fact that you idea of liberty is not what the founders had in mind. Nothing you say will change the fact that morality is vital to a nation.

Nothing will change the fact that Almighty God's law is what matters first and foremost.

You can cry all you want about the way I police.

As for the crimes against nature offense:

Dura lex sed lex

[FF578]

Pinging the good guys.