Well, as I noted--it should more accurately be the right to SELL these toys.
So the 9th Amendment means that the people can do whatever they want? The 9th Amendment protects gay marriage? It protects sodomy? It protects consentual pedophilia? It protects necophilia? It protects polygamy?
If not, why not? How do you draw the line--and I'm being serious here, and I'd appreciate a serious answer: if the 9th Amendment doesn't protect those things, how does society determine which actions are protected and which aren't? How is the line drawn?
Until you can answer that question with a statement other than "the will of the people" (since that's what is at work here) then I don't think we can carry on any further. Any conversation on your part would be entirely irrational.
whoops! consensual, rather.
Val:
Even assuming incorporation, there's a right to own a dildo in the constitution?
You're really that 'innocent'? Whatta laugh.
Prohibitions on 'toys' are the issue. And there's a right to own all the toys you want in the Constitution. --
It's unenumerated. -- Check out the 9th.
Well, as I noted--it should more accurately be the right to SELL these toys.
Yep, how they can be sold is subject to 'reasonable regulation'.
So the 9th Amendment means that the people can do whatever they want? The 9th Amendment protects gay marriage? It protects sodomy? It protects consentual pedophilia? It protects necophilia? It protects polygamy?
Enjoying your little bit of hype? Get real. States & local governments can write & enforce laws/regs written under constitutional due process.
If not, why not? How do you draw the line--and I'm being serious here, and I'd appreciate a serious answer: if the 9th Amendment doesn't protect those things, how does society determine which actions are protected and which aren't? How is the line drawn?
--- Reasonable men can enact reasonable regulations using due process as per our Constitution. For instance -- We have reasonable regs about nukes, and we have unreasonable, unconstitutional prohibitions about drugs, etc.
The 'line' is drawn at enacting prohibitions on items like drugs, tobacco, guns, porn, -- that have no actual intrinsic danger to people..
Until you can answer that question with a statement other than "the will of the people" (since that's what is at work here) then I don't think we can carry on any further. Any conversation on your part would be entirely irrational.
My statement on majority rule was irrational? -- Feel free to leave the discussion at any point when you feel that way, rather than trolling for effect.