Posted on 04/24/2002 3:56:03 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Is this an FDR style freedom? "Freedom from want." "Freedom from fear."
How does the Supreme Court saying something is NOT illegal chip away at freedom?
The ruling regarding virtual child pornography renders unconstitutional laws already enacted by 24 states and so the central government takes even more of your freedom to govern yourself closest to home.
The sad thing is the overwhelming amount of "freedom lovers" who embrace it.
Have they ever ?? ?? ??
I do not claim that porn is protected speech. I merely point out that Article I, section 8 does not give the federal government the authority to do anything about it. The authority of the federal government is limited to those matters specifically listed in the Constitution. If you paid any attention to the original understanding of the framers, you'd know that.
I take it then that you do not believe in constitutional government. In which case, I don't suppose it does much good to continue our discussion. You see, I believe in the Constitution.
The notion that the "commerce clause" allows the federal government to exercise a generalized police power is an error. It is an error perpetuated by the left because they want unlimited federal government. You appear to have fallen into this error. This does not mean that you are a leftist, but you should consider the implications of what you say.
Unfortunately, many "conservatives" have knee-jerk reactions to issues such a pornography, drugs, euthanasia, etc. and are willing to abandon the idea of limited, constitutional government in order to solve this problems. Then they express outrage when liberals use the same doctrines to advance the liberal agenda.
You hit the nail on the head with this one . . .
Unfortunately, it's all too true. Just look around FR and you'll see loads of people who are willing to discard the Constitution to get their favorite project enacted. They become outraged if you point that fact out and use the same arguments that liberals use.
The sad thing is that they believe there is a real difference between what they say and what the liberals say.
Please refer me to these FEDERAL obscenity laws you refer to.
No, we are not talking about child pornography here. Thats why this discussion gets so many pissed off at you guys. You have no comprehension of what the SCOTUS struck down. It makes you all look so foolish.
LOL!! The un-answerable question.
Insofar as viewing rights to pornography are for sale on the internet, the very nature of the internet makes such sales "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states" and for that matter with wired "Indian tribes." Unless there were some way for an internet porn site whose administration was located in, say, New Jersey, to guarantee that only New Jersey residents would have access, such a site is engaged in international and interstate commerce. Furthermore, free internet porn sites are typically supported by advertising, largely by pay sites, and so are adjuncts to commerce.
As Justice Story points out in his Commentaries, Article 8 makes no statement whatsoever about the motive for which the regulation of commerce is put in the power of the United States. "A power to regulate commerce is not necessarily a power to advance its interests. It may in given cases suspend its operations and restrict its advancement and scope."
Yep. Well stated. What will be the "free speech" topic in ten years? I shudder to think.
This is where the law failed to pass Constitutional muster. As was pointed out in the majority opinion, there are many mainstream (non-pornographic) works that depict minor characters engaged in sexual activity. When this is done for a movie, as an example, an adult actor is chosen to play the part of the minor character. Under 18USC2252(a)(5)(B), that was illegal, even though no minors were involved. In pointing out that the "children" protected by the statute are cartoons, Rush is right (again).
The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on this precludes ANY state or local government from doing so. If the Supreme Court strikes down this law, it cannot be resurrected by any local authority.
I agree with you that the Federal government has no such authority, but now no local government does either.
Seeing as they struck down a Federal law, how is this a "power grab from the states"?
The interpretation you suggest putting on the commerce clause make a mockery of the whole idea of limited government. Your intepretation leaves the federal government to regulate virtually every facet of our lives. This was not the understanding that the founders had of the authority of the federal government.
One of the rules of statutory construction is that you should interpret statutes in light of the problems the statute sought to address. There were two problems that the commerce clause sought to address.
First, some states were putting tarriffs on goods from other states. Second, some states refused to allow goods from another state entry into their borders. These two issues caused significant problems with trade. These problems were among the main reasons the Constitutional Convention was held.
Reading the commerce clause in light of the problems to be addressed, and in light of the founder's understanding that they were instituting a government of limited authority, you can readily see that the interpretation you suggest is inappropriate.
I've long contended that this is the difference between liberals and consrevatives: Liberals like their big government slathered on from left to right while conservatives prefer it slathered on from right to left.
I concur with the result reached by the court, but I would dissent with the reasoning. Application of the 1st Amendment was inappropriate in this case. Perhaps Mr. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion points that out.
Be that as it may, the 1st Amendment does not legitimately apply to the states. Though I know that the court will apply it. Perhaps this would be a good test case for a state nullifying an unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court.
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.