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.

[FeliciaCat]

No, I dont think I would get a "kick out it". It doesnt interest me at all. The fact that YOU are the one who has brought it up leads me to believe this sort of thing interests YOU alot. I have no idea why you have singled me out for your little twisted and baseless accusations, I can only assume that you have bigger issues then I care to know about.

[FeliciaCat]

I'm from a part of California that has NOTHING to do with Los Angeles or San Francisco. Dairy farms, agriculture and horse ranches are what I grew up with. hint: Its a BIG state.

I don't make smarmy little remarks about where YOUR from, I would appreciate the same in return.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

You may have grown up with dairy farms, agriculture and horse ranches....however, a large majority of your neighbors are nothing more than socialist idiots. The only thing I am sorry for is that you have to live around them...

[Knitebane]

You claim the Consitution gives teens the "right" to have oral sex in a car.

Wrong. I claim no such right. That's because the Constitution does not give rights. The Constitution places all rights and powers in the citizens of this country and then enumerates what powers that the governement may have.

This idea that if it isn't in the Constitution then you don't have that right is just wrong. It's an idea thought up by busybodies, authoritarians and thugs to lend credence to their own immoral actions. The reality is if it isn't in the Constitution, the government doesn't have that power. See the Federalist papers for details.

The fact that you keep braying about how people don't have rights because they aren't listed in the Constitution places you squarely in the authoritarian camp. Thusly, my "attacks" upon you are due to your authoritarian nature, and are not personal. If you wish the attacks to cease, then cease your power-grabbing, busybody approach to government.

And, no, there really isn't any difference between a Nazi SS officer stuffing Jews into ovens and a cop sticking his nose into other people's business. One derives from the other. It is merely a matter of degree.

[Pahuanui]

The fact that you keep braying about how people don't have rights because they aren't listed in the Constitution places you squarely in the authoritarian camp.

Shhhh! Don't spook the horse! It's amusing to watch yahoos who think they understand the Consitution, history or both spout off.

[LowOiL]

. I have no idea why you have singled me out for your little twisted and baseless accusations, I can only assume that you have bigger issues then I care to know about

YOU are the one that has no problems with this stuff, not me. You are the one that said -----> If some weirdo wants to screw a FAKE chicken in the privacy of his own home, whats it to you? (I noticed you conviently left off your quote to me, probable cause you were ashamed to reprint it).

You are the one that didn't answer whether you had a problem with these stores selling blow up little boys. I do, what about you? The world awaits your answer to see if there is anything that can actually find your border of immorality? One person of the same persuasion as yourself has already said he had no problem with this. Do you?

Is there an actual border that you will not support, what if some jerk actually made a doll with your image on it, would that not upset you?.. That is why I don't support this judge's decision. It blurs the edges of civility.... I don't mean to upset you in any way with my answers, but if I am dealing with a person that has no limit on what they believe is lewd behavior why would it even bother them what I say. You can't have it both ways.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

do that at least have a seven day waiting period for a complete background check

[FF578]

That's because the Constitution does not give rights.

I am glad you admit that. Guess where rights come from.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

So does Almighty God give the right for teens to have oral sex in a car?

Actually you just made my point. Law must reflect God's law, that is why the Crimes Against Nature Statute is good.

[FeliciaCat]

-----> If some weirdo wants to screw a FAKE chicken in the privacy of his own home, whats it to you? (I noticed you conviently left off your quote to me, probable cause you were ashamed to reprint it).

I am ashamed of nothing. Get off it. YOU INTRODUCED THE WHOLE CHICKEN THING INTO THE CONVERSATION. ADMIT IT AND BE DONE WITH IT ALREADY.

You are the one that didn't answer whether you had a problem with these stores selling blow up little boys. I do, what about you? The world awaits your answer to see if there is anything that can actually find your border of immorality? One person of the same persuasion as yourself has already said he had no problem with this. Do you?

I DIDNT RESPOND TO YOU BECAUSE IT WAS AN IDIOTIC AND INCINDIARY QUESTION. AGAIN, YOUR SMARMY AND BASELESS ATTACKS ABOUT WHAT I MAY FIND MORAL OR IMMORAL SHOWS THAT YOU DON'T WANT A DISCUSSSION OR DEBATE BUT MERELY WANT TO GRANDSTAND. AND IF IT WILL EASE YOUR MIND,QUITE FRANKLY THE IDEA OF BLOWUP DOLL THAT LOOKS LIKE A CHILD IS SICKENING AND DISGUSTING TO ME.

Is there an actual border that you will not support, what if some jerk actually made a doll with your image on it, would that not upset you?.. That is why I don't support this judge's decision. It blurs the edges of civility.... I don't mean to upset you in any way with my answers, but if I am dealing with a person that has no limit on what they believe is lewd behavior why would it even bother them what I say. You can't have it both ways.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY "LIMITS" ARE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE FAR STRICTER THEN YOURS. LETS RECAP SHALL WE? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP CHICKEN SEX, AND BLOW-UP DOLLS THAT LOOK LIKE CHILDREN AND THEN ACCUSED ME OF "GETTING A KICK" OUT OF THESE THINGS, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS.

I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING TO YOU SO DONT BOTHER REPLYING.

[LowOiL]

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY "LIMITS" ARE.True, you have yet to indicate a limit, except you hate being shown that very fact. I BELIEVE THEY ARE FAR STRICTER THEN YOURS. So far you have failed to show any limits, you still refuse to say whether a child image is crossing the border. I have made it clear it was for me, but you hee-hawed and continued to refuse to draw a line. Why, because you don't have a line. Period. Which makes you NOT stricter than myself. LETS RECAP SHALL WE? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP CHICKEN SEX, AND BLOW-UP DOLLS THAT LOOK LIKE CHILDREN AND THEN ACCUSED ME OF "GETTING A KICK" OUT OF THESE THINGS, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS. First you made the first statement to me around post 60. You attacked my religion and I took you to task for it. You made a statement that was almost exactly like Hustler Larry Flynt would/had said. I asked you to differenciat yourself from him and you have so far failed to do so, as a matter of fact you have defended his actions clearly and fully with the "whatever he does in the privacy of his own home is ok" (paraphrased) defense. I can see no reason why you do this, but I have no problem pointing them out as long as you defend them as civil.

I have no problem with you not responding to me again here. Bring up your silly immoral arguements again and try lambasting me for having the opposite and see if I ignore you.

[Pahuanui]

Law must reflect God's law, that is why the Crimes Against Nature Statute is good.

Looks like they'll let just about anybody be a LEO these days.

[Knitebane]

So does Almighty God give the right for teens to have oral sex in a car?

Can you find a passage in the Christian bible (any one of them will do) that specifically prohibits it? Now, now. No "interpretations" or "inferences." Chapter and verse, please.

And besides, there are other religions that are quite liberal on what two people can do to each other provided both are consenting. Buddism and Hinduism come to mind. Shinto as well. LDS is pretty liberal, too.

Or are you saying that the only moral base that can be used is a certain sect of Christianity? Doesn't that rather bump up against the 1st Amendment? Let's not get into the "separation of church and state" since that's not in the Constitution, but rather the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," part, which rather prohibits busybodies from declaring that simply because one particular sect of one branch of one religion thinks that something is immoral that it should be outlawed and criminal penalties imposed.

Once again, if it's a moral issue, it's not your business. It's between that person and God.

When you achieve godhood, I'm willing to listen to your holy pronouncements. Until then, butt out, Officer Busybody.

[flyervet]

Your exact words were: "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. "

Robbery and ARMED Robbery are different. I specifically referred to Common Law Robbery in my post.

And you presented me with a flawed example, and failed to respond to my contention. That’s pretty much what I expected.

The Exchange went like this. IN post 164 you said: "So, in NC, LEOs are empowered to enforce common law?"

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

You apparently didn't believe it because you said in your next response: "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. "

You didn't know that North Carolina had a common-law robbery. You assumed wrongly that Robbery was a statutory crime. Armed robbery is.

I want to see a verifiable current statistical breakdown of robberies versus what you term “common-law robberies.” I believe that we shall see that these “common-law robberies” are far more rare than are statutory robberies. This is the point I attempted to make, and which you have sought to obscure.

Considering the amount of gray language in the two citations you provided, I wonder what, exactly, would make the courts prosecute a case as robbery at Common Law as opposed to robbery per statute. There appears to be very little difference between the two, thereby strengthening my contention that in court, robbery prosecutions would likely fall under the statute.

Here you go talking about something that you know nothing about.

You presume much, “Officer.” Be careful.

North Carolina law is complicated. I will give you some more examples in a bit. Right now let us focus on the robbery question.

There is a world of difference between Armed Robbery and Common-Law Robbery.

Your point in reference to the definition of the two has been made and accepted. Further red herrings are unnecessary. I now want to see a verifiable current statistical breakdown of robberies versus what you term “common-law robberies.” I believe that we shall see that these “common-law robberies” are far more rare than are statutory robberies. This is the point I attempted to make, and which you have sought to obscure.

Good luck subjecting most Americans to violence or fear without a weapon.

You over-estimate the courage of most Americans. You are talking about the same people who let 5 hijackers take a plane of over 40 people with boxcutters?

No, I’m talking about the 40 people who rushed the cockpit of UA 93 so that it wouldn’t strike its intended target. You unjustly disparage the courage of your countrymen, “Officer.”

You are talking about the same soccer mommies who believe all violence must be avoided?

I didn’t bring them up. You did.

The crime against nature statute goes back before the founding of our nation.

No, it doesn’t. There was no statutory American law before the founding of our nation. I ask you again -- since the courts defined “crime against nature,” then doesn’t that qualify as “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench?” If your “crimes against nature” offense was so important to the Founders, we wouldn’t need to have judges define the crime. But obviously, in this case, the courts have usurped the will of the people. There is no other way to explain this.

By the way, “Officer,” the first sodomy statute in NC was enacted in 1836. You’ll find it in The Revised Statutes of the State of North Carolina, Passed by the General Assembly at the Session of 1836-7, Vol. I, (Raleigh:Turner and Hughes, 1837).

Our founders were smart enough to know what the crime against nature is.

Irrelevant. They chose not to promulgate a statute forbidding it.

Unnatural sexual intercourse is the crime against nature. The history of the law can be traced back to old english law:

If you’d like for me to trot out a Blackstone’s and disassemble your biased polemic, “Officer,” I’ll certainly be pleased to do so. Just be advised that police officers generally don’t argue cases.

I haven’t identified myself as a libertarian, “Officer.” That’s shoddy police work. Confine yourself to the statements I have made, not the statements you wish I had made. Just the facts, please.

Your statements give you away as a libertarian.

You have no facts on that score. Therefore you have made a presumption that is not based on facts. That is shoddy police work, “Officer.”

I certainly don’t want YOU selectively enforcing laws. But more to the point, I don’t think police officers should ignore an MVA in order to write someone a ticket for a broken taillight. And I don’t think LEOs should ignore a robbery call in order to stop some guy from having a good time with his wife.

This is another red herring from you.

Not in the least. You specifically asked me if I wanted LEOs selectively enforcing laws. I responded directly to your query. Keep to the facts under discussion, “Officer.”

#1 the Crimes against nature statute applies ONLY to unmarried couples. A guy and his wife would not be at issue.

And how would you know that the couple was married, “Officer?” Absent proof of marriage, you would be obliged to detain or arrest both parties. Furthermore, if our Founders were so wise, then why is the State of North Carolina presuming to change their judgment by exempting married couples? Why did the State of North Carolina remove the death penalty for the “crime against nature” in 1868? To use your words, “Officer,” what made the Founders wrong? And what makes you correct right now?

#2 no officer is going to ignore an MVA to write a ticket for a taillight. No I, nor any other officer I know. No officer is going to ignore a robbery call to get a CAN.

Sed lex, dura lex. You’re letting lawbreakers off the hook, “Officer.”

Oh, PLEASE. LEOs use their judgment every day, which amounts to “enforcing it the way they want.” Besides, YOU already said that YOU selectively enforce the law. You SPECIFICALLY said that when you encounter couples parking, you CHOOSE to haul them in under the “crimes against nature” statute.

Guess what, I am following the law, not selectivley enforcing it. Selective enforcement would be letting the couples go under a lesser offense.

Uh uh, officer. Your words. You CHOOSE to haul them in. And are they getting three years imprisonment if it’s not a first offense?

No, I don’t believe I’ve said that. I have exercised my First Amendment right to free speech in order to argue against a specific law that I find foolish and unjust. Your response to that is “too bad, it’s the law.” Well, “Officer,” unless and until you can repeal my right to free speech, too bad for YOU. What you seem to have missed here is that we are gathered here, free citizens all, to discuss a topic of public interest. We are not arguing the enforcement of the law, but rather the shape the law should take. And in our capacity as free citizens, we are totally free to do so. You are also free to be part of the discussion, but the part you appear to have missed here is that your alleged status as an NC LEO does not grant you the ability to silence the discussion.

Another red herring.

Not in the least. You don’t even want us discussing this.

I never said anything about your 1st Amendment rights.

I know you didn’t. You don’t want it pointed out. You don’t want people talking about this at all, but you know that you can’t demand we stop talking about it.

You have a right to hate the law all you want.

Wrong answer, “Officer.” I do not hate the law. Mostly because I get to have a hand in shaping it. I clearly pointed out – and you even quoted me – “I have exercised my First Amendment right to free speech in order to argue against a specific law that I find foolish and unjust.” Nothing in there about “hate,” “Officer.” I think the only “hate” going on here is yours. You “hate” to see us discussing a law that you personally like.

You have a right to protest against it, you have a right to work to change it, but until it is changed I have a duty to enforce the law,

In case you weren’t reading this thread, “Officer,” we are not discussing ENFORCEMENT. So unless you have something else to contribute, perhaps you should allow us our discussion. Furthermore, you’re darn right I have those rights.

and I have just as much right as any to work against the law being repealed.

Nobody’s stopping you. However, you appear to be bent on stopping us.

BTW, thanks for admitting what I’ve been saying about you from the start.

I never once tried to silence the discussion.

Oh, PLEASE. You’ve done nothing but tell us “too bad.” You’ve done nothing but discourage posters who disagree with you and call us names (I note that you persist in calling me a libertarian, though you have no evidence). Far from working to uphold the law, you are actively working to silence discussion on this topic, simply because you don’t like what’s being discussed.

You do NOT have that right, “Officer.” If you want to prove others wrong, you go right ahead. Otherwise, you’re only here to attempt to silence discussion.

As free American citizens, we can discuss matters of public interest, elect our representatives, and if we wish, we can CHANGE LAWS. Once that’s done, you’d have to enforce the new law. See how this works, “Officer?”

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO YOU in post #179. I am sorry if you cannot read.

And this is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PREVENT US FROM DOING. I am sorry if YOU cannot read.

I know it would be a heartbreaker for you if your pet law were overturned, but I think you’d better start making plans for it. And remember, once your state’s sodomy/CAN law is overturned, you won’t be able to get your jollies anymore by looking in the windows of parked cars. You can’t charge people any longer when it’s not a crime. Sed lex, dura lex, fella.

And when the laws get changed, you don’t get to enforce the old ones that you wish were still on the books.

Ditto to the above comment.

Ah, but you have been sustaining your feeble claim by saying (more or less) ‘it’s been a law for a long time’ and ‘how is our judgment better than that of the founders?’ You appear to have a great affinity for certain laws, and I suspect you would want them to remain in force. I also suspect that, were sodomy/CAN decriminalized, you would find some minor charge with which to inconvenience people you caught engaging in it.

Teenagers going at it in a car? I think you’d try to bust them for being out after curfew. An unmarried couple getting it on in an apartment? I bet you’d peek through the windows and then try to bust them for public indecency. You see, “Officer,” someone with your rather questionable judgment can be quite dangerous in a law enforcement profession, as people like you tend to set your own judgment above that of the law. Our Attorney General is a good example of that. The people of Oregon, using their right to force ballot initiatives, got a law enacted in their state. AG Ashcroft doesn’t like that law. Despite the fact that the law concerns the regulation of an industry that has heretofore been regulated totally and completely by individual states, AG Ashcroft has decided to set his judgment above the explicitly stated will of the good people of Oregon and try to overturn their law.

That’s not his job. Neither is it your job to enforce your own standards of morality.

Let me ask you this, “Officer” - have you ever made up or planted evidence on a suspect that you just “knew” was guilty? Let me say it once more, Officer Red Herring - I haven’t identified myself as a Libertarian. If you claim I am one, that’s just your opinion, and not worth a plugged nickel.

You statements give you away to being a libertarian. You may or may not be a member of the libertarian party, but you are libertarian in your belief.

Is that your legal judgment? Or is that a guess on your part? I think you’re calling me a libertarian simply because I don’t agree with a law that you happen to like. That’s pretty slim justification for name-calling.

As for planting evidence. Never, and I wouldn't even think of doing it. Your insult is below a further response.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And if you find a fully clothed man and woman inside, what then? If they’re of different races, what then? If they’re not married, what then? If you receive a call regarding a robbery in progress at Golden Gallon, are you going to check out the car first, or will you head for the robbery?

If they are fully clothed, leave.

Whoops! You just dropped the ball, “Officer!” Read 326 S.E. 2d 303.

As for the different race thing, I don't even know why you are bringing that up, I have no problem with people of different races being together, it is not against the law either.

Really? NC has had an anti-miscegenation law on the books since 1715. And it was stiffened up in 1836, declaring all interracial marriages void “to the third generation.” Yet §51-3.1. revokes that. Why? Was there something wrong with the laws of your state? If North Carolina had anti-miscegenation laws on the books for so long, who, exactly, are your present lawmakers to question that judgment? Why, “Officer,” are you setting your judgment above that of the fine men who founded your state?

I wonder who is bring up herring now?

Well, “Officer,” it is very important that we point out your hypocrisy. When we talk about “crimes against nature,” you justify laws proscribing them by pointing out how old they are. However, when confronted with a recently repealed law that also has centuries-old roots, you don’t seem to have a problem with its repeal.

That’s hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, “Officer.” If age is a sufficient sole justification for continuing a law in force, then North Carolina cannot repeal its anti-miscegenation law. You can’t have it both ways.

As for the robbery in progress call, I, just like any other officer, would go to the more serious call. Common sense.

Hmm. So you’re saying that your judgment would cause you to leave and not arrest people who were clearly breaking a law. Yet you could stay and finish the job.

Secondly, DNA studies suggest a rather strong genetic relation between the two branches of the family.

NO DNA has proven anything yet.

And here’s where you’re wrong, and talking about something that you know nothing about. Mitochondrial DNA has proven conclusively that the white and black groups in question are closely related by blood. After 200 years, the precise degree of consanguinuity cannot be precisely established, but it has been conclusively established that someone within Jefferson’s immediate family – if not actually Thomas Jefferson himself – did father a child with Sally Hemings.

And you can cry all you want about your favorite laws getting changed by the free and unfettered will of the people.

Well when Ellie Kinnard (D) tried to get the law changed, she was flooded with letters, e-mails and calls at people upset with her. So the people of North Carolina apparently do not want the law to go away.

Unless a referendum were held, no one can convincingly claim cannot presume to know the will of the people of North Carolina on this issue. Perhaps you were unaware that your state’s legislators were prepared to strike the law down, but were harassed and threatened by individuals opposed to that action. Perhaps you were somehow involved?

Furthermore, even though the law didn’t get repealed in either 1984 or 1993, your state did pass a rather comprehensive revision of its criminal penalties in 1993. Sodomy/CAN convictions prior to 1965 carried a penalty of 5-60 years imprisonment, but afterwards, carried an undefined penalty of imprisonment. Cases occurring in that period were generally held to be penalizable under another NC law that set a maximum penalty of 10 years if no specific penalty had been set by statute. Since 1995, your state has had a standard three-year penalty for convictions under the sodomy/CAN law, and judges are given some latitude in determining how much prison time, if any, offenders should serve. I would also like to point out that judges are not supposed to impose jail terms on first offenders of th IAW Public Laws of North Carolina 1993, page 1411, ch. 539, enacted July 24, 1993, effective Jan. 1, 1995.

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that the 1965 revision to your law came about as a result of a rather harsh judgment it in 234 F.Supp. 333, Perkins v North Carolina. In that decision, the NC Supreme Court was criticized by a Federal judge for having “misinterpreted both the statute and the common law.”

You apparently do not understand NC Law very well.

As I said, “Officer,” I would be very, very careful about making presumptions and assumptions of that nature if I were you.

I don't blame you for that, NC Law is very complicated.

No more complicated than the law of any other state.

If you would allow me to demonstrate, Please answer the follow questions:

Actually, here’s where I have to caution you, “Officer.” You are attempting to induce me to violate §84-2.1 and §84-4 of the NC General Statutes. I won’t fall for it, and I won’t do it, and if I knew your name and jurisdiction, I’d report you to the NC Bar Association for investigation.

This should demonstrate my point.

Actually, it demonstrates mine quite well.

[FF578]

Actually, here’s where I have to caution you, “Officer.” You are attempting to induce me to violate §84-2.1 and §84-4 of the NC General Statutes. I won’t fall for it, and I won’t do it, and if I knew your name and jurisdiction, I’d report you to the NC Bar Association for investigation.

§ 84-2.1. "Practice law" defined. Statute text The phrase "practice law" as used in this Chapter is defined to be performing any legal service for any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the preparation or aiding in the preparation of deeds, mortgages, wills, trust instruments, inventories, accounts or reports of guardians, trustees, administrators or executors, or preparing or aiding in the preparation of any petitions or orders in any probate or court proceeding; abstracting or passing upon titles, the preparation and filing of petitions for use in any court, including administrative tribunals and other judicial or quasi- judicial bodies, or assisting by advice, counsel, or otherwise in any legal work; and to advise or give opinion upon the legal rights of any person, firm or corporation: Provided, that the above reference to particular acts which are specifically included within the definition of the phrase "practice law" shall not be construed to limit the foregoing general definition of the term, but shall be construed to include the foregoing particular acts, as well as all other acts within the general definition. The phrase "practice law" does not encompass the writing of memoranda of understanding or other mediation summaries by mediators at community mediation centers authorized by G.S. 7A-38.5.

§ 84-4. Persons other than members of State Bar prohibited from practicing law. Statute text Except as otherwise permitted by law, it shall be unlawful for any person or association of persons, except active members of the Bar of the State of North Carolina admitted and licensed to practice as attorneys-at-law, to appear as attorney or counselor at law in any action or proceeding before any judicial body, including the North Carolina Industrial Commission, or the Utilities Commission; to maintain, conduct, or defend the same, except in his own behalf as a party thereto; or, by word, sign, letter, or advertisement, to hold out himself, or themselves, as competent or qualified to give legal advice or counsel, or to prepare legal documents, or as being engaged in advising or counseling in law or acting as attorney or counselor-at-law, or in furnishing the services of a lawyer or lawyers; and it shall be unlawful for any person or association of persons except active members of the Bar, for or without a fee or consideration, to give legal advice or counsel, perform for or furnish to another legal services, or to prepare directly or through another for another person, firm or corporation, any will or testamentary disposition, or instrument of trust, or to organize corporations or prepare for another person, firm or corporation, any other legal document. Provided, that nothing herein shall prohibit any person from drawing a will for another in an emergency wherein the imminence of death leaves insufficient time to have the same drawn and its execution supervised by a licensed attorney-at-law. The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other provisions of this Chapter. Provided, however, this section shall not apply to corporations authorized to practice law under the provisions of Chapter 55B of the General Statutes of North Carolina.

You have really lost your mind. Answering my questions on a public forum is not practicing law. I simply wanted to demonstrate that you probably would not get the charges right.

For example one of the elements of burglary is the crime must be committed at nighttime. For the examples I gave about the house during the daytime, even though everything else was the same, you could not charge burglary.

I was not trying to induce you to do anything, and your irrational paranoia makes you unsuitable to have further any discussion with.

No lawyer in the world would even think that practicing law would also encompass answering scenarios. We answer the same scenarios in basic police academy. Are we "practicing law" there. In fact the questions I asked you come straight from my old basic training workbook.

Since you want to be irrational and paranoid, We will agree to disagree on the morality of the law and leave it at that.

Good day.

[null and void]

I think he missed the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

[kinghorse]

I've waded through darn near the entire thread and am left feeling like Republicans will never learn. Winning a mandate over security issues and the economy means the electorate sees the Republicans as being a better choice for handling, surprise, security issues and the economy.

Just as the far left went into an orgy (oh my gosh I said a naughty word)of liberal excess after Clinton won his first election, far right Republicans are following the same wrong path with these types of social issue LOSS LEADERS. Loss leaders in the sense the Republican party is not going to gain much and has a heck of a lot to lose by allowing the fringe to pull a bait and switch after the election. They will alienate the moderate swing vote.

These issues are S-T-U-P-I-D and play right into the hands of those who would like to see the Republicans thrown out in 2 years. Snow Mobiles, smokestacks, dildos (good grief), all loss leaders. Security, economy, taxes, all prime movers.

Don't fall for the trap being set by the liberal press. The liberals are in disarray but the press has enough clout to sway the electorate if it can portray the majority as a bunch of holy rolling, tree killing, snow mobile enviro-trahing busy bodies. Keep a low profile, get conservative judges confirmed and tighten things up one state at a time.

We didn't vote Republican to see Trent Lott get preachy. We voted to see GWB kick ass and take names.

Flame away but you know I'm right.

[LowOiL]

We didn't vote Republican to see Trent Lott get preachy.

Why you voted Republican and why I voted Republican is probable not exactly the same. Smaller government, less taxes, ect...are fine and dandy, but I also vote Republican because of my morals based on a belief in Almight God's wisdom. Now you talk about what will happen if democrates get ahold of this and that tactic. Well what would happen if Republicans abandon a moral base of Christian nut right wing voters? Well you lose everything Sir. Maybe 50 or more % of the solid Republican base. Alienate that...

Situating yourself on the Moral issues is not STUPID, in most cases republican voters voting in todays elections base their vote on which canidate is the most moral. Pointing to those differences is a more pulling attractant than Security, economy, taxes IMHO. Those are just side perks.

[MattAMiller]

As far as I see it the only virtues related to sex are discretion and loyalty. And those who worry about vibrators are manning the wrong barricade.

[LowOiL]

Ever notice that the guys just mention dildos and vibrators and conviently leave out the male items for some reason? Why, because blow up dolls with various grotest position plastered all about them is somehow beniegh them to describe. This is just a woman thing they try to humor themselves. I have first hand seen the inside of a sex shop that we (church group) have picketed. It is not just dildos, it is a sicko world inside there. You name it perversion wise, they carry it. From pornography photos to rubber bed sheets in case you like to pee. The male on male material is front and center.

Gloss over this as you may, but I will tell it like it is. These shops are not just female dildo stuff.