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

Skip to comments.

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
AP ^ | 4/23/6 | Seanna Adcox

Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham

Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."

"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.

People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: appliances; gardening; talibornagains
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-445 last
To: robertpaulsen

I believe that if there is no one interested in it, then no one will buy it and then they will quit selling it.

No perversions are being forced on anyone, because no one is forced to buy them. If they are allowed to be sold, as they are currently and have been for some time, then there should be age restrictions.

You state that other states are doing it, I reply the same as I would my kids about their friend; Just because they jumped off the Empire State Building without parachutes, doesn't mean you should do it? California banned "Assault Weapons" does that mean that we should, just because it fits the morals of a single assembly person and a few people state wide?


401 posted on 04/26/2006 1:53:39 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

It is your religious beliefs that back this stupid bill. Just because your name is not in the article does not mean that you should not be taken to task for your comments about some perversion being forced on the citizens of SC. Sorry, but that don't float. No one forces people to eat unhealthy and no one is forced to buy sex toys.

The citizens do not decide, it is the assembly. Yes the citizens vote the members in, but the members can go rogue and go against the citizens. Yes they can be voted out, but it is too late if a bill becomes law and we know how often a law gets taken off the books. Look at the law that the guy that fell into the river and swore, while a lady and her child were near by, got charged with a few years ago. The law about swearing around women and children had been on the books since the 1800s, I haven't heard that it has been repealed yet.


402 posted on 04/26/2006 2:03:23 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
"No perversions are being forced on anyone, because no one is forced to buy them."

As I said in an earlier post, if you had a crack house next door, prostitutes walking up and down your sidewalks, and an OTB parlor and bar across the street from where you live, that would be OK because no one's forcing you to partake in what's being offered?

C'mon.

403 posted on 04/26/2006 3:21:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
"It is your religious beliefs that back this stupid bill."

Actually it's not. It's my belief that people should be able to decide amongst themselves how they will live together. Majority rules.

404 posted on 04/26/2006 3:23:18 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Feh. This is why the Republicans will lose votes from the right-of-center libertarian crowd, whom I think really represent the majority in this country, not Bible thumpers who think it's their job to tell grown adults what they can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Unfortunately, some people with way too much free time on their hands obsess over this stuff over other little things like, you know, terrorism and the borders.


405 posted on 04/26/2006 3:28:44 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
"to tell grown adults what they can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms."

Hmmmm. And here I thought the legislation only covered the sale of the products -- I guess I misread the title of the article.

406 posted on 04/26/2006 3:35:25 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate rights.

You quoted Madison earlier -- please allow me to do so also. His comments before the House of Representatives when he was arguing in favor of a Bill of Rights:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
He was referring to the text that would eventually become the 9th Amendment:

-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(Wait a minute -- that's the 9th Amendment verbatim, saying that the Constitution enumerates rights? Yes, with the express caveat that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people. That's a good thing.)

Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!

Bite your tongue. If you read the full text of Madison's previously quoted (by both you and me) speech to the House, you'll hear several times a distinct wink and a nod to the effect that he hopes all the States will incorporate the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions and laws. Madison again:

"If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people."
So I would disagree that the 14th Amendment was some sort of gross aberration to the intent of the Founders. In reality, it was the logical extension to the spirit of the Constitution, because it settled once and for all that the rights enumerated in the Constitution (yes, enumerated in the Constitution, I said it again) applied to the People in all the States. (Okay, I apologize -- I'm just tweaking with you a little with the whole "enumerated" thing, even though I'm right. The Constitution actually enumerates very limited powers to the government, and reserves all others for the States and the People, I realize that. But the Bill of Rights is commonly said to "enumerate rights" -- you were merely arguing semantics to say otherwise).

You'll have to be more specific when you talk about my inconsistencies -- I don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry, I thought I was clear about that. I'm simply saying that you seem to be in favor of strong, even extreme federalism when it is convenient for a political position you support (gun control laws), but in favor of the Supremacy Clause and federal intervention when that allegedly supports a different political position you hold (drug laws, which is a case where I would argue that ironically, the federal government has actually overstepped its Constitutionally enumerated powers, by using "regulation of commerce" as a baldfaced phony excuse to restrict activities which should in fact fall under the control of the States' police powers. I know you'll cite case law to support your position, and I'll still tell you you're wrong -- the standard application of Constitutional law in this area is "well-intentioned" but wrong). You seem to engage in a la carte principle selection, depending on which one suits your political position, rather than taking a consistent stand on principle and letting the political results of that position flow naturally from the principle.

Furthermore, every federal court in every court decision (save one court in one decision) has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia. That's all the second amendment does.

Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, the U.S. Department of Justice position on the issue. Hope you'll take the time to actually read that -- it's lengthy but very in-depth in examining the issue. From that page:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
One last goody for you, too. Even though you don't like the 14th Amendment, it's part of the Constitution. Despite mixed interpretations in case law regarding its effect on the 2nd Amendment, the original drafter of the 14th Amendment, John A. Bingham (R., Ohio), had absolutely no doubt as to its intended application:
Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:

ARTICLE I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ARTICLE 2

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Amendments III-VIII, also listed by Bingham, are here omitted.]

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union."


407 posted on 04/26/2006 8:15:45 PM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
This is why the Republicans will lose votes from the right-of-center libertarian crowd, whom I think really represent the majority in this country, not Bible thumpers...

Where does this leave right-of-center libertarian Bible thumpers, like me? :-)

408 posted on 04/26/2006 8:21:58 PM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock

If you're a true libertarian, you'll thump your Bible but not make me do it with you : )


409 posted on 04/26/2006 9:05:15 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
If you're a true libertarian, you'll thump your Bible but not make me do it with you

Then I'm certainly a libertarian (small "l").

As much as I want to see all people come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, I believe that this is achieved through personal one-on-one evangelism, not state-enforced religious legalism. As we've been discussing (at length) on this thread, the Constitution strictly limits the power and scope of government, to the benefit of all who live in the God-given liberty this provides.

If the personal morality of the nation's individuals has decayed so badly that they cannot handle the responsibility of living freely in self-governance and self-determination, then all the nanny-state totalitarian force in the world isn't going to change their hearts anyway.

410 posted on 04/27/2006 8:26:23 AM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock
My response was to your statement, "But in the case of RKBA, you take a clearly enumerated Constitutional right ...". It appeared that you were saying the RKBA was an enumerated right granted by the constitution. Just so we're clear, the RKBA is an inherent right protected from federal infringement by the constitution.

"-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I read that as, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights protected from federal infringement by this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"... you'll hear several times a distinct wink and a nod to the effect that he hopes all the States will incorporate the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions and laws."

Be that as it may, 150 years went by before the states started incorporating the BOR, and only because they were forced by the U.S. Supreme Court to do so! But if the states themselves adopted some or all of the BOR, at least the state supreme court would interpret them, not five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court telling us that nude dancing is protected "speech" and all states must comply. That's how the 14th is destroying federalism.

"I'm simply saying that you seem to be in favor of strong, even extreme federalism when it is convenient for a political position you support (gun control laws), but in favor of the Supremacy Clause and federal intervention when that allegedly supports a different political position you hold (drug laws ...)"

Mere coincidence.

My "principle" is based on constitutionality -- in these two areas, I happen to agree with the courts. The second amendment is not incorporated and only applies to the federal government. I think we agree, so I will not belabor the point.

Regarding drugs, I think we agree that Congress has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs. Maybe they shouldn't be in that business (an arguable point), but they certainly have that power if they choose to do so (which they did so choose).

As to the intrastate regulation, that seems to be the sticking point. The bottom line is this -- since intrastate drugs would affect Congress' interstate regulation, they can control it. If they cannot, then we can just forget about the Commerce Clause.

For example, Congress regulates the airlines -- cruising altitudes, air corridors, landing patterns, radio frequencies, etc. What if the intrastate carriers took the same attitude as the pro-drug group and said that Congress may not regulate them -- that they can fly wherever and whenever they want since they only fly within their state?

Oh, that makes sense robertpaulsen, so Congress should be allowed to regulate them also. It not only makes sense, it's constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It makes as much sense for intrastate air traffic regulation as it does for intrastate drug regulation.

Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, the U.S. Department of Justice position on the issue."

Yes, I read it. Their position and $6.95 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. If Hillary gets elected, I'm sure her Department of Justice will have something to say about the second amendment. Will you be citing that?

"the original drafter of the 14th Amendment, John A. Bingham (R., Ohio), had absolutely no doubt as to its intended application:"

I believe Mr. Bingham was the ONLY one who knew this. Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court didn't know its intended application -- in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, April 5, 1869, the Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of the case by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.

Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the states, you would think that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have known about this intent, either the plaintiff's lawyer, or one of the nine eminent constitutional lawyers on the 1869 Supreme Court.

Now, not only didn't the U.S. Supreme Court know its intended application, Congress didn't know its intended application. A mere eight years after the 14th amendment was ratified, Congress debated, and almost passed, the "Blaine Amendment" -- a resolution to recommend to the states a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the first amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government.

Now why would they do this if the first amendment was already incorporated under the 14th amendment?

411 posted on 04/27/2006 9:30:28 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
My "principle" is based on constitutionality -- in these two areas, I happen to agree with the courts.

And if I may boil this entire debate down to a simple point, it would be that I do not agree with the courts, or their interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar -- I know that many men of good conscience have mulled over these issues through the years. Some have reached conclusions similar to yours, and some have reached conclusions similar to mine.

You actually seem to have a much better grasp of history and Constitutional law than many of the people debating with you give you credit for. I simply disagree with your conclusions, and prefer a much more libertarian application of law.

My view is that the Founders were saying something like this: "Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."

Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.

And extending this silly little analogy ad nauseam, I believe that today, we find that the government that was placed inside that box looks a lot like The Blob (the monster from all those old movies). It has escaped from the box, is invading everywhere, and is entangled in places it never should have been. Its enablers and accomplices have been many, and they are not necessarily conspiratorially involved -- but for whatever reason, they allowed it to escape, and it continues to grow.

I understand that this is a very "philosophical" analogy, that has a limited relationship to the reality of legal issues, but I think it at least provides an overview of how I view the role of government as intended vs. the role of government as practiced.

412 posted on 04/27/2006 4:07:19 PM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Wow!


413 posted on 04/27/2006 6:50:54 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

First off, the scenario you detailed is happening in many urban areas. Crack houses are all over cities because the neighbors tolerate them or are not willing to take care of the issue themselves. I and my neighbors would not tolerate this because we don't tolerate the baggage that comes allong with it.

Second, I have no problem with a bar across the road or next door for that matter. My uncle owns a bar and I don't think that alcohol is evil.

Third, I could care less about OTB parlors because I don't care about gambling.

Fourth, I think that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. That would create a new source of tax income for the government. After all women have been doing it for years all over the world legally, it's called hooking up with a sugardaddy. The street walkers would not work my neighborhood, not enough traffic, and they would end up getting chased away by people anyway.

Most importantly, the government has no business protecting people from themselves or what goes on in the privacy of your home when it comes to consenting adults.


414 posted on 04/28/2006 4:57:01 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock
"But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box,"

Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".

The Founders believed it much easier to control their own state than some government body hundreds of miles away; therefore, they weren't concerned about the power given to their own state.

The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live. The USSC is the entitity that says our kids can't pray in school, can't display religious symbols, can't even dicuss political issues 30 days before an election!, must allow abortion, must allow sodomy, on and on.

Where do I go, Ryan Spock, to raise my kids the way I want? What state offers me the kind of life I want to live? Where's MY freedom, Ryan Spock?

415 posted on 04/28/2006 5:08:10 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
"I and my neighbors would not tolerate this because we don't tolerate the baggage that comes allong with it."

Right, and the law allows ytou to take action against this crack house if you and your neighbors wish to. The law allows you to address the prostitute issue, or the bar, or the OTB parlor if you and your neighbors wish to.

If it doesn't bother you and your neighbors, fine.

I'm saying that the law similarly allows the people to address the issue of stores selling sex toys.

416 posted on 04/28/2006 5:22:06 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina

His wife needs them all for Christmas decorations.

417 posted on 04/28/2006 5:27:18 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Since "banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states", then I would proudly tell people I'm from a Southern state that supports morals and decency and is a good place to raise children."

A very good friend and co-worker confided in me 4-5 years ago that he had ED and could not take the magic pills because of his high blood pressure. He and his wife resorted to adult aids (as he put it) so as to scratch those itches that morally superior busybodies might call perversions.

They are still a monogamous couple in the good old moral southern tradition except they live in the North. I'd have no problem with them watching my daughter if I had to.

Please consider your position and remember the danger every time we allow government to regulate our private lives and no I am not a druggie, never have never will.

418 posted on 04/28/2006 5:31:16 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Well, if this has the support of the people, your problem is not with the government."

Hmmm, this sounds like it is coming from the "we live in a democracy and if the majority want.....blah, blah" when in fact we live in a Representative Republic so that the 3 foxes and 1 chicken don't vote on what's for dinner.

SC can do what they want you are correct (albeit only what the ever expanding federal government allows) but that does not make it right.

419 posted on 04/28/2006 5:37:58 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
[Bill's] wife needs them all for Christmas decorations.

You'll never guess this German word for ornament (see URL).

;-)

420 posted on 04/28/2006 5:38:08 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
"They are still a monogamous couple in the good old moral southern tradition except they live in the North. I'd have no problem with them watching my daughter if I had to."

No doubt. I have no dog in this hunt and I make no moral judgements on the people who buy and use sex toys. Furthermore, I don't believe the citizens of South Carolina are doing that either.

The issue is the storefront SALE of sex toys. That's it. Even if you didn't read the article, it's right in the title: "Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina".

Not possession. Not use. Not even the purchase of sex toys elsewhere. SALE.

421 posted on 04/28/2006 6:01:02 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
"SC can do what they want you are correct (albeit only what the ever expanding federal government allows) but that does not make it right."

Are you saying that, in the name of "freedom", the citizens of South Carolina should not be allowed to prohibit the sale of material they deem obscene? Then let me ask, "Where is their freedom to live their lives and raise their children how they wish?"

Oh, I understand what you're saying -- this is America, land of the free, where everything is legal and the individual chooses how they will live. No one is forcing an individual to partake.

Legalization implies societal acceptance -- an acceptable option, if you will. Well, there are things that are not acceptable to our society, and we have laws against them for that reason.

422 posted on 04/28/2006 6:12:06 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; everyone
As I said in an earlier post, if you had a crack house next door, prostitutes walking up and down your sidewalks, and an OTB parlor and bar across the street from where you live, that would be OK because no one's forcing you to partake in what's being offered? C'mon.
It's my belief that people should be able to decide amongst themselves how they will live together. Majority rules.

Our Constitution 'rules'. People can reasonably regulate the "-- crack house next door, prostitutes walking up and down your sidewalks, and an OTB parlor and bar across the street from where you live --" etc..
-- They cannot enact 'drug war' prohibitions, make 'outlaws' of prostitutes, or ban gambling & drinking. -- Or guns, as you avow.

C'mon, -- can you admit that the 14th's due process clause is violated by writing & enforcing unreasonable 'laws'? - Laws repugnant to the US Constitution?

423 posted on 04/28/2006 6:13:28 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Everybody
paulsen wrote:

Legalization implies societal acceptance -- an acceptable option, if you will. Well, there are things that are not acceptable to our society, and we have laws against them for that reason.

Are 'things' like guns "acceptable"? Apparently you thought not, -- a few years ago:

Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen

424 posted on 04/28/2006 6:30:50 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Spock commented:

My view is that the Founders were saying something like this:
"Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."

Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.
412 Ryan Spock

Paulsen responds:

Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government [not entirely true] -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".

-- Few indeed, but the Constitutional 'box' included power over the States in Article VI to enforce the 'Law of the Land', which includes enforcing all Amendments to the Constitution.

The Founders believed it much easier to control their own state than some government body hundreds of miles away;

True enough, but there are prohibitions on the powers of States within the Constitution.

therefore, they weren't concerned about the power given to their own state.

Belied by the clear words of Article VI, "-- any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.

You're kidding yourself. They both "dictate".. Unconstitutionally.

The USSC is the entitity that says our kids can't pray in school, can't display religious symbols, can't even dicuss political issues 30 days before an election!, must allow abortion, must allow sodomy, on and on. Where do I go, Ryan Spock, to raise my kids the way I want? What state offers me the kind of life I want to live? Where's MY freedom, Ryan Spock?

You seek the contradictory 'freedom' to prohibit. -- And as long as you give that unlimited power to a States 'majority', you will find no actual liberty. Catch 22.

425 posted on 04/28/2006 7:15:38 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".

I understand what you mean, and this is where my simple analogy breaks down somewhat (after all, we're attempting to use a simple thing to illustrate a much more complex thing). But if you'll indulge me a little and allow me to return to this analogy, I'd like to try and understand your view.

So, we have the box in the middle of the room, and inside that box, is the federal government, strictly contained as defined by the Constitution. Are you saying that federalism dictates that ALL SPACE outside this box belongs inherently to the states? I know that the constitution of each of those states defines the size, shape, and scope of the box that each state's government exists in, but does this mean that in your view, there is no space inherently reserved for the individual people that make up those states, exclusive of the state's power to infringe? I know, as we discussed earlier, that the courts have not ruled that the 14th Amendment includes the Bill of Rights as being fully incorporated on the States. But it sounds like you're saying that federalism could allow for an individual state constitution to say in essence, "We own ALL SPACE outside the federal government box for the people in our State, and intend to place extreme restrictions on those people because that's what the people want", and that if it really was what the people wanted in that state (by way of their representatives of course, and notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, due process, etc) then the state is absolutely free to do so. Is that correct? If so, does that disturb you at all? (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess is that you'll say "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty", or something to that effect).

The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.

And as I noted early on in our discussion, this is why, as somebody who values liberty, I do see the appeal of federalism to a certain degree. You sound like you're agreeing that the federal "Blob" has escaped from its box and is infringing all over the space reserved for the states and the people. I guess I'm trying to determine how extensively you view the Constitution as permitting each state to regulate the individual liberties of the people in that state (and it sounds like you're saying "To whatever extent they wish, since the federal government is over there in the box and can't stop it"). I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?

426 posted on 04/28/2006 7:53:46 AM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock; robertpaulsen
Nice post.. -- Good luck with getting a reasoned response out of paulsen.
I, - and many others, - have been making those same arguments to him for 4 years now. As you guessed, he will come back with some variation on the "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty" line.

It's too bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.

Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".

427 posted on 04/28/2006 9:37:44 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".

Usually SCOTUS doesn't have much use for the Tenth -- particularly libs -- but we're likely to get Ginsberg's vote at least. Why do you think they call her "Buzzy"?

428 posted on 04/28/2006 9:39:15 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Hey, no one likes to admit that their own 'power' is limited.

In effect that's the whole dispute here in a nutshell; -- people as dissimilar as paulsen & ginsberg can agree that governments should have the power to prohibit.

Prohibitionism is a social disease that infects both political parties.

429 posted on 04/28/2006 10:06:55 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
There are fanatics on both sides of this issue.

Did you know Clinton tried to get an executive order through that would have reversed the order? He tried to state the fed. power came first and they determined what could be delegated down the line.

Talk radio was able to stop this by pointing out to the Governors of the states that this would remove all of their power so they got together and got this one stopped.(EO347443 or something like that)
430 posted on 04/28/2006 10:33:43 AM PDT by BabsC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock
"But it sounds like you're saying that federalism could allow for an individual state constitution to say in essence, "We own ALL SPACE outside the federal government box for the people in our State, and intend to place extreme restrictions on those people ..."

OR extreme freedoms, if you will. My heavens, just how did we survive as a country for 150 years prior to the establishment of a federal government?

Our republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers, created a federal government with very few powers. It was the Founding Fathers who trusted their state to protect their liberties.

The precursor to the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, demonstrated how the states guarded their independence -- it gave Congress the power over military and monetary affairs, for example, but no authority over the states to force them to comply with requests for troops or revenue.

Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty. Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away. It's not the U.S. Supreme Court. They've been busy limiting your religious freedom, freedom of speech, property rights and finding emanations in penumbras. Bad enough that these whacky interpretations apply to the federal government -- thanks to the 14th amendment, they also apply to the states.)

"I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?"

Yes, primarily the judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution and forces that interpretation, via the 14th amendment, upon the states. That was not the intent of the Founders. If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example. Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.

Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.

431 posted on 04/28/2006 11:07:51 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Ryan, - nice post.. -- Good luck with getting a reasoned response out of paulsen.<
As you guessed, he has replied with -- "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty" line.

It's to bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.

Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".

paulsen goes on to claim:

Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty.

Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away.

Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.

If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example.

No one is claiming 'nude dancing' can't be regulated by reasonable State laws. -- The USSC has upheld the principle that nude dancing can't be prohibited by police state methods that violate due process.

Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.

Again, States cannot allow a specific religions 'establishments' to be respected at the State Court House.

Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.

So? Why aren't the States fighting back? -- Could it be that the politicians want their power to prohibit items like guns & drugs to be respected by feds? -- And hope that by not 'bucking the system', they will eventually get the power to ban abortion, sodomy, etc, and mandate things like school prayer?

432 posted on 04/28/2006 1:22:37 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Ryan, - nice post.. -- Good luck with getting a reasoned response out of paulsen.<
As you guessed, he has replied with -- "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty" line.

It's to bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.

Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".

paulsen goes on to claim:

Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty.

Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away.

Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.

If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example.

No one is claiming 'nude dancing' can't be regulated by reasonable State laws. -- The USSC has upheld the principle that nude dancing can't be prohibited by police state methods that violate due process.

Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.

Again, States cannot allow a specific religions 'establishments' to be respected at the State Court House.

Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.

So? Why aren't the States fighting back? -- Could it be that the politicians want their power to prohibit items like guns & drugs to be respected by feds? -- And hope that by not 'bucking the system', they will eventually get the power to ban abortion, sodomy, etc, and mandate things like school prayer?

433 posted on 04/28/2006 1:24:33 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker


sex shops along the border? Can you imagine a "Pedro's South of the border" for sex toys? Hee hee! What huge item will be visible from the interstate?


434 posted on 04/28/2006 3:58:21 PM PDT by flib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Prolly cause ole Ralphie boy can't even get an inflatible doll to put out for him!!!


435 posted on 04/28/2006 4:21:00 PM PDT by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dighton

I always thought that word meant something else. ;D

It does in Yiddish, anyway...


436 posted on 04/28/2006 4:32:06 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Yiddish and German are closely related, as are the German schmuck (ornament) and Yiddish . . . . ornament of a different sort.
437 posted on 04/28/2006 4:36:01 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

"Oh, I forgot... [insert my post here] I guess some folks wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it bit them in the butt." With a bill of such idiocy as this the boundaries between sarcasm, satire and the actual actions of politicians is actually hard to distinguish:-(


438 posted on 04/28/2006 4:40:08 PM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Get a grip. A crack house next door and ho's on the street honestly affect your quality of life; a couple playing with toys in their bedroom is non of your damn business and you are sick in the head and elsewhere if you think it is.
439 posted on 04/28/2006 4:42:12 PM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker

Agreed! The line does get kinda blurred. Sorry, I gotta go, my vibrator is buzzing.


440 posted on 04/28/2006 5:03:55 PM PDT by upchuck (Wikipedia.com - the most unbelievable web site in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
"a couple playing with toys in their bedroom is non of your damn business"

Did you think this law affects what goes on in the bedroom? Now, maybe you're too busy and can't be bothered with reading the article -- I understand -- but didn't you at least read the title of the article? Here, let me post it for you, again.

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina.

Did you see that? SALE. The SALE of sex toys. Not the possession. Not the use. The SALE. Get it now? Don't you feel foolish?

The citizens of South Carolina appear to be just as offended by these stores marketing, advertising, displaying, and selling these sex toys as they are offended by the presence of crack houses or "ho's on the street". They consider such blatant selling to be obscene. They want it stopped. I suppose you think they have no right to do that.

I read nothing in the article about prohibiting couples from playing with toys in their bedroom. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

441 posted on 04/29/2006 5:37:46 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Local zoning ordinances are quite sufficient to deal with what business operate where, this is about busybodies and pandering to wannabe theocrats and closet pervs, who are the only people who would give a damn.
442 posted on 04/29/2006 9:28:04 AM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
"Standing sex leads to dancing."

Um, what if the dancing includes touching and that touch leads to a stimulating effect upon one or each of the dancers, would that be considered a "sex toy"?

443 posted on 04/30/2006 12:55:48 PM PDT by Mikey (Freedom isn't free, but slavery is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; robertpaulsen
Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.

But as paulsen would put it, that is because that is what the majority of the citizens want. It wouldn't/couldn't be that some elected lackies would do this against the citizens' wishes. After all they voted them in, and so on.

444 posted on 05/02/2006 5:11:03 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
Don't expect any rational answer from paulsen.. His self touted debating 'ability' doesn't extend to actually discussing the constitutional facts of concealed carry 'laws'.
445 posted on 05/02/2006 6:38:26 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-445 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