| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2004 06:00:37 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
In most state hookers are illegal...that's sex ain't it. |
There's a perfectly valid argument for it being an illegal restraint of free trade, a violation of the right of freedom of association, and, absent any overwhelming finding of public harm (harder to prove since it's legal/regulated in Nevada), and that blanket prohibitions on prostitution are, in fact, unconstitutional.
However, it's valid to require a seller's permit to vend from either a retail facility or a public venue (e.g. sidewaik), with the attendent paperwork and fees.
As in a majority of these situations, the worst aspects of these "illegal" activities are directly attributable to their illegal status, more so than as a consquence of the activity itself.
Casey Stengel was once asked about whether sex before a big game was bad for his players. He replied "It's not the sex that's the problem, it's the stayin' up all night chasin' after it that's the problem!" |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 06:06:04 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Those same people can vote them out of office too...
LMAO so are they going to stop the sale of cuccumbers, carrots and gerbils in the state of Alabama? |
I was going to ask if you can eat a vibrator, but maybe not.... |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 09:21:59 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There's a perfectly valid argument for it being an illegal restraint of free trade, a violation of the right of freedom of association, and, absent any overwhelming finding of public harm (harder to prove since it's legal/regulated in Nevada), and that blanket prohibitions on prostitution are, in fact, unconstitutional.
However, it's valid to require a seller's permit to vend from either a retail facility or a public venue (e.g. sidewaik), with the attendent paperwork and fees. |
Given your prior statement, how can you then say that it's "valid to require a seller's permit...with the attendent paperwork and fees"? Isn't that, in and of itself, a restraint on FREE trade? It isn't "free" trade if you have to pay a fee to get a permit to sell something.
I would posit that MANY of our trade laws are not supported by the Constitution. While I think that most are probably imposed to safeguard the health and welfare of "the people", I think that many are imposed simply to generate income for the government.
And speaking of free trade: Why is it against the law to sell one of your own kidneys, or a lung? Isn't that a restraint on free trade, also? How about laws that prevent an expectant mother, who has the legal right to ABORT the zygote in her womb, from SELLING that same zygote for implantation in an infertile woman's womb? And a woman can GIVE her baby up for adoption, but cannot SELL that infant to a couple wishing to adopt - does that make sense? In a "legal" adoption, the "fees" go to the adoption "agency". Why can't a woman be her own "agent" for the adoption and take those fees for herself?
As always, the biggest problems in law occur where morality is involved. It has been said that you cannot legislate morality, but most governments, America's included, sure do try.
Ron |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 09:39:21 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As always, the biggest problems in law occur where morality is involved. It has been said that you cannot legislate morality, but most governments, America's included, sure do try.
Ron |
We can definitely agree here : )
I shouldn't have used the legal cliche "restraint of free trade," when I mean an inequitable and arbitrary application of the law based on (essentially) religious values. I think if you're going to accept the proposition that a government can pass and enforce laws against certain activities or behaviors, the obligation is to maintain the minimum effect on individual liberties consistent with protecting the public welfare.
I guess I believe in regulation more than prohibition. Most if the scenarios you mention offer opportunities for fraud and misrepresentation, which is where I believe) the government has both the right and authority to protect the public. However, even though they are great examples, they are not all cut of the same cloth, and each would require extensive discussion to see if we could find a mutually satisfying solution ... I'm inclined to let the legislators continue to frustrate themselves with that for now ... |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 09:47:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I shouldn't have used the legal cliche "restraint of free trade," when I mean an inequitable and arbitrary application of the law based on (essentially) religious values. I think if you're going to accept the proposition that a government can pass and enforce laws against certain activities or behaviors, the obligation is to maintain the minimum effect on individual liberties consistent with protecting the public welfare.
I guess I believe in regulation more than prohibition. Most if the scenarios you mention offer opportunities for fraud and misrepresentation, which is where I believe) the government has both the right and authority to protect the public. However, even though they are great examples, they are not all cut of the same cloth, and each would require extensive discussion to see if we could find a mutually satisfying solution ... I'm inclined to let the legislators continue to frustrate themselves with that for now ... |
Hmm. "...maintain the minimum effect on individual liberties consistent with protecting the public welfare".
Excellent phraseology, that. I like it, and find myself in total agreement with it. I just wish more legislators took that approach.
Ron |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 09:52:37 AM · #31 |
Thanks Ron. Of course now comes the hard part. behaving consistently with that philosophy. I somehow suspect you'll catch me seeming to contradict myself on this someday : )
If only
1 picture = 1000 words
were really a true equation I'd have a better average score around here ... |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 11:22:28 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
People want toys !
"BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy. "
Bananas and cucumbers are next to be banned ! |
God I wish i lived in America. I really do.
Message edited by author 2004-07-30 11:55:27. |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 11:45:34 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
People want toys !
"BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy. "
Bananas and cucumbers are next to be banned ! |
God I wish i lived in America. I really do. Land of the free wasn't it?? |
FYI Alabama is only one of 50 states in the USA. The people of Alabama elected the officials that made this rule for their state. This is how the people of Alabama chose to live. That is still freedom. If they don't like it, they have the freedom to vote them out of office. |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 11:50:37 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by biohazard:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
People want toys !
"BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy. "
Bananas and cucumbers are next to be banned ! |
God I wish i lived in America. I really do. Land of the free wasn't it?? |
FYI Alabama is only one of 50 states in the USA. The people of Alabama elected the officials that made this rule for their state. This is how the people of Alabama chose to live. That is still freedom. If they don't like it, they have the freedom to vote them out of office. |
I stand completely corrected. What a silly mistake. |
|
|
|
07/30/2004 03:12:19 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Thanks Ron. Of course now comes the hard part. behaving consistently with that philosophy. I somehow suspect you'll catch me seeming to contradict myself on this someday : )
If only
1 picture = 1000 words
were really a true equation I'd have a better average score around here ... |
Amen. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:20:42 PM · #36 |
Alabama Executes Senile Cancer Patient
74 year-old J.B. Hubbard was senile and suffered from colon and prostrate cancer. His other infirmities ranged from emphysema, hepatitis to an aching back. He also had a low IQ. He was so infirm that other inmates washed him, combed his hair and often had to remind him who he was. That didn't stop the state of Alabama executing him yesterday for a 1977 murder. Hubbard spent 27 years in jail waiting to be put to death
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 12:46:14 PM EDT.
