The Supreme Court: Unlocked Doors and Whitey

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | Friday, December 6th | Brian S. Wise

[Karsus]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Harm \Harm\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Harmed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Harming.] [OE. harmen, AS. hearmian. See Harm, n.]
To hurt; to injure; to damage; to wrong.

Though yet he never harmed me. --Shak.

No ground of enmity between us known Why he should mean
me ill or seek to harm. --Milton.


From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Harm \Harm\, n. [OE. harm, hearm, AS. hearm; akin to OS. harm,
G. harm grief, Icel. harmr, Dan. harme, Sw. harm; cf. OSlav.
& Russ. sram' shame, Skr. crama toil, fatigue.]
1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.

2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

We, ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms.
--Shak.

Syn: Mischief; evil; loss; injury. See Mischief.


From WordNet (r) 1.7 :

harm
n 1: any physical damage to the body caused by violence or
accident or fracture etc. [syn: injury, hurt, trauma]
2: the occurrence of a change for the worse [syn: damage, impairment]
3: the act of damaging something or someone [syn: damage, hurt,
scathe]
v : cause or do harm to

[Karsus]

First I do not have access to the entire legal code of every location in the USA but a good starting point would be the areas where one can be charges with public indescency/intoxication.

But I hope that most logical thinking people can say that being behind 4 walls, a roof, a closed door, and closed windows constitute a private area. If your own home is not a private are then what?

There is a MAJOR step from g-string to public sex. You are using the same argument that the pro-abortion / anti-gun groups use.

A strip club does have an effect on the surronding area. That is why they can be regulated by the local goverment.

[bvw]

Well, the in-practise definition of adequately covering private parts started with full size panties and migrated down to a g-string.

Likewise courts have been pretty arbritary with regard to what constitutes a private sub-space within a public space. The trend has been liberal -- allowing more claims against prosecuting on the basis that there was some expectation of privacy even in public areas. You argue using the most secure and easy to define private space -- in practise there are many more private spaces much less secure and easy-to-agree on than a bedroom in your own house.

[tpaine]

bvw:
Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime?

No, he can't.
218 - roscoe lies -

My comments at #211 stand unrefuted by you three clowns, -- and now, to divert attention away from that fact, you claim that victimless 'crime' law is historically justified.
-- This nations constitution was written in an attempt to correct such historical injustice.

You boys, and your weird opinions on constitutional law are testimony that much work remains to educate americans on their own liberty.

[Roscoe]

My comments at #211

Unresponsive noise.

[tpaine]

More BS from roscoe.

[Roscoe]

"Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime? Or would you have that in the 5000 years (minimum) of civilization this has not been considered and is you two have happened upon it?" --bvw

Couldn't manage even a speck of historical support, tpaine?

No surprise there.

[tpaine]

Read the constitution. It's my historical support, just as I noted.

[Roscoe]

Read the constitution.

Which provides no support for your inane, unsupported and willfully ignorant assertions.

[tpaine]

Another inane, unsupported and willfully ignorant assertion by roscoe. -- Ho hum.

[Roscoe]

"Valentin claims that the federal government does not have concurrent criminal jurisdiction in instances where the state has criminalized certain conduct. We disagree. Although the states have a primary role in defining and prosecuting criminal law, see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982), both the states and the federal government are vested with the authority to define and punish offenses against their authority, see United States v. Giovanelli, 945 F.2d 479, 491 (2d Cir. 1991), and "a single act constitutes an 'offence' against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93 (1985)."

"Valentin's claim, that the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, is also without merit. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, as well as activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995). This court has found that certain federal criminal statutes established by the Controlled Substances Act, including 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), criminalize conduct which substantially affects interstate commerce. See Proyect v. United States, 101 F.3d 11, 14 (2d Cir. 1996)(per curiam) (upholding 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1)); United States v. Genao, 79 F.3d 1333, 1336 (2d Cir. 1996)(upholding 21 U.S.C. § 846). Furthermore, congressional findings codified in 21 U.S.C. § 801 establish that even the local manufacture, distribution, and possession of controlled substances substantially affect interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. § 803(3),(5); see also Proyect, 101 F.3d at 12-13; Genao, 79 F.3d at 1335-36."

http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/May98/s96-2782.html

[bvw]

You give no entry to your own pig-headedness.

[bvw]

That wouldn't even give a first grader a passing grade.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

If it is done in private what does it matter? It is not like it is hurting anyone (except maybe those involved in it)

Sodomy hurts all tax payers. As tax payers we are paying out the ass (as opposet to in the ass) huge sums of money to treat and attempt to find a cure for AIDS. If the people participating in high risk behavours, such as sodomy, take all of the responsibility I wouldn't mind the laws being repealed. Let those who kill others via AIDS pay for their actions. Don't take money from me to pay for their perverted practices.

[tpaine]

"Valentin claims that the federal government does not have concurrent criminal jurisdiction in instances where the state has criminalized certain conduct. We disagree. Although the states have a primary role in defining and prosecuting criminal law, see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982), both the states and the federal government are vested with the authority to define and punish offenses against their authority, see United States v. Giovanelli, 945 F.2d 479, 491 (2d Cir. 1991), and "a single act constitutes an 'offence' against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93 (1985)."

Good grief, what an inane cite.
-- How are victimless 'crimes' offenses against fed/state authority?
Who gave fed/state/local governments the power/authority to create 'crime' from acts that harm no person?

[tpaine]

Your posts show you to be the 'pig-headed' juvenile.
Thanks, & keep up the good work.

[FreedomCalls]

Sodomy hurts all tax payers.

Read this.

[Karsus]

Smoking, overweight people, lazy people, people who do not exercise, people who X hurt all taxpayers. Should all the above be made illegal also?

This is not about if sodomy is right or wrong. It is about the power of the state to control people.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Like I said, "if the people participating in high risk behavours, such as sodomy, take all of the responsibility I wouldn't mind the laws being repealed."

I know of no laws already on the books regarding fat people so there are none to repeal. PLease let me know if I am incorrect (with links to the anti-fat-people laws please).

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Excellent link!