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

To: prometheus1982

I understand the libertarian PoV, but whether anyone likes it or not Spitzer has seemingly violated federal law, The Mann Act, as well as the local laws of NY State and the District of Columbia by engaging in a money transaction for sex. He may also, based on the transcript, be a repeat offender and may even be involved in forwarding a criminal conspiracy. A person may think the laws are too intrusive to a person’s liberty, but until rescinded they are law, and he is the Chief Executive of New York State, charged under the state’s Constitution with faithfully executing the laws of the state.


21 posted on 03/10/2008 4:29:23 PM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: xkaydet65

It was only a state matter until money went from one state to another. Now it’s federal and he’s in trouble.


22 posted on 03/10/2008 4:30:53 PM PDT by darkangel82 (If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. (Say no to RINOs))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65

Some Mann Act info from wikipedia:

Mann Act case decisions by the United States Supreme Court

* Hoke v. United States (227 U.S. 308, 322) (1913). The Court held that Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or “immoral purposes”.
* Athanasaw v. United States (227 U.S. 326, 328) (1913). The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to “debauchery” as well.
* Caminetti v. United States (242 U.S. 470, 484-85) (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of “immoral sex”.
* Gebardi v. United States (287 U.S. 112) (1932). The Court held that the statutory intent was not to punish a woman’s acquiescence; therefore, consent by the woman does not expose her to liability.
* Cleveland v. United States (329 U.S. 14, 16-17) (1946). The Court decided that a person can be prosecuted under the Mann Act even when married to the woman if the marriage is polygamous. Thus polygamous marriage was determined to be an “immoral purpose”.
* Bell v. United States (349 U.S. 81, 83) (1955). The Supreme Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.


32 posted on 03/10/2008 4:38:36 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

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