Sex, Drugs and Consenting Adults

Discussion in 'Northern New Jersey' started by wartboy, Feb 13, 2003.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. SkellyChamp

    SkellyChamp

    Messages:
    2,000
    Wartboy - the following was your statement yesterday long before pswope got involved;

    "What I am saying is that government has no moral right to outlaw such behavior."

    The problem with discussing this and explaining this is that it aboslutely requires more than just listing those areas/activities.etc. where the courts have or have not found a compelling state interest such that government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests is permitted. There are so many permutations.

    Its not an easy area for lawyers to understand and would require an analysis of the 14th amendment and the particular right or freedom at question (free speech, religion, right of privacy, etc.)and whether its analyzed using strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and rational basis.

    (And we're not even getting into equal protction issues.)

    Moreover, off the top of my head I can't think of a due process case that didn't involve a split court and mutilple opinions even among those justices who agreed with each in the result or agreed with each other not in the result.

    Wartboy if you are really interested I'm sure a search of the web would give you places to do some reading about it.

    There is one case involving drugs and religion which is quite interesting (as well as its aftermath)

    I beleive the case is Employment Division v. Smith (involving the use of peyote in religious rituals. What I remember uniquelsy about this case was that after the decision a coalition of religious fundamentalists joined forces with civil libertarians, religious leaders of virtually every faith, and constitutional scholars organized to persuade get Congress to pass legislation which would in effect trumpt the Court's decision. I beleive that legislation was called something like the Religious Freedom Act (early 90's). A few years later the Supreme Court struck down that law.

    I swear you can't make this shit up.
  2. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    Justlooking, I not sure that morality requires any particular type of state, I just think that the state should not have the power to determine what is "moral" or "immoral". I'm confident the Founding Fathers would agree. See the Thomas Jefferson quote below. If an action "neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg" it's none of government's business -- federal, state or otherwise.
    Also, the Constitution has been a dead letter since the days of "Uncle Joe Stalin's" best friend FDR. Your reference to the interstate commerce clause is an example of the destruction caused by FDR and his socialist ilk. Heck, throw the "general welfare" clause in there with the interstate commerce clause. The original, and literal meaning of both were destroyed by the Supreme Court which had fallen victim to the threats of that scum sucking leftist, FDR. Not only do we no longer live under the Constitution, we are no longer a Republic. Instead, we've become a democracy where majority rule decides right or wrong. Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.
    And as far as the "moral authority" reference goes, that's NOT my phrase, it's pswope's.

    "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson
  3. justlooking

    justlooking

    Messages:
    25,481
    The point is, wartboy, you might think "morality" requires a libertarian state. I might think "morality" requires socialism. Unfortunately for both of us, the Constitution doesn't call for either of those systems. "Moral authority" is irrelevant because in questions of governmental power what matters is Constitutional authority, since in America we live under a Constitution rather than whatever some arbitrary powerholder might decide is required by "morality". And, I'll repeat, if you think there's any support in the Constitution for the notion that the states can't outlaw drugs or prostitution (and that the federal government can't outlaw them when they affect interstate commerce), you're dreaming. It's a pleasant dream in some ways, I agree. But it's still a dream.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2003
  4. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    Justme quote: "He's trying to tell you that moral philosophy and practical law enforcement are independant."

    They are, Justme? Then why does LE have "morals" and "vice" divisions?


    pswope quote: "This power is derived from the constitutoin (sic) and has no relationship to any moral authority you advert to. Whatever the hell that is."

    Ah pswope, I'm the one who asked YOU who this "moral authority" is. Recall YOUR original quote: "moral authority is irrelevant to states and federal police powers." I'm not the one adverting to any moral authority......you are.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2003
  5. pswope

    pswope One out of three

    Messages:
    4,036
    Re: moral authority is irrelevant to states and federal police powers.


    As jl points out constitutional "police power" is different than the law enforecement power,you refer to. It refers to the authority each entitiy has to legislate and impose control over things,which would include commercial sex. This power is derived from the constitutoin and has no relationship to any moral authority you advert to. Whatever the hell that is.
  6. robnotbob

    robnotbob

    Messages:
    2,912
    No, it's not.
  7. justme

    justme homo economicus

    Messages:
    9,592
    You want to add another layer of distinction?

    But you're right, this is a really silly argument.
  8. justlooking

    justlooking

    Messages:
    25,481
    I don't want to get further involved in this, but I do want to point out, to help the discussion, that the "the police power" isn't congruent with law enforcement. It's more like the state's power to regulate conduct for the common good.
  9. justme

    justme homo economicus

    Messages:
    9,592
    He's trying to tell you that moral philosophy and practical law enforcement are independant.

    Or do you think most police chiefs are trained by reading a ton of political philosophy?

    Another way of putting it? Life ain't fair.
  10. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    moral authority is irrelevant to states and federal police powers.

    pswope writes: "moral authority is irrelevant to states and federal police powers."

    What the hell does that mean? Sounds like a politican speaking...a couple of nice, big words in a statement that makes no sense.

    Who, or what, is the "moral authority" you are refering to? And if something is "irrelevent to states (sic) and federal police powers" why would LE prosecute such "crimes" if they are "irrelevent" in the first place?

    Or are you trying to say that "states and federal police powers" don't care what the "moral authority" says about crimes like prostitution? If that were true, why do LE have "morals" and "vice" departments in the first place?

    In other words, "huh"?
  11. justme

    justme homo economicus

    Messages:
    9,592
    (Although John Rawls might argue that the greater the disssonence, the less permanent the instiution)
  12. pswope

    pswope One out of three

    Messages:
    4,036
    otoh

    another study found that men who are not promiscuous are 50% more likely to have their heads explode during summer months.

    wb

    moral authority is irrelevant to states and federal police powers.
  13. Geezy Muldoon

    Geezy Muldoon Gold

    Messages:
    2,351
    FWIW, promiscuity in men has also been cited by researchers as contributing to a higher incidence of prostate cancer.
  14. *********

    *********

    Messages:
    772
    Don't use alcohol or drugs before you have sex. You may be less likely to use a condom if you are drunk or high. Always use condoms correctly every time you have sex.

    Many doctors recommend that all persons who have more than one sex partner be tested regularly. Unsafe sex can lead not only to to hiv/std's but also can increase your risk of cervical cancer or cancer of the penis (spread in infected blood and other bodily fluids such as semen, vaginal secretions, saliva, open sores and breast milk).
  15. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    Jl, true that prostitution is really a state's issue according to the 10th amendment. I don't mean to argue that point. What I am saying is that government has no moral right to outlaw such behavior. Such laws are are not the laws of a free country.
    On the other hand, the Federal government has zero/zip/nada Constitutional authority to pass or enforce laws against such things as prostitution and drug use. And yet the FBI, among other "federal" LE agencies, are allowed to operate in a purely unconstitutional fashion regarding these, and other, victimless crimes.
  16. justlooking

    justlooking

    Messages:
    25,481
    Or, for that matter, that the drafters of the Constitution didn't recognize that the state governments and, to a lesser extent, the federal government possessed the police power to regulate conduct within them.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2003
  17. justlooking

    justlooking

    Messages:
    25,481
    I would like you to show me a smidgeon of proof that the drafters of the Constitution intended to form a country where the states couldn't outlaw prostitution.
  18. Casper

    Casper

    Messages:
    8,268
    But where will all those civil servants work?
  19. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    for all that you might want to torture the Constitution

    Justlooking, the Founding Fathers (the guys who wrote the Constitution) envisioned a libertarian society, most notably a government with minimal powers.
    Furthermore I have no desire to start my own country, I just want my old country back! A country where you were free to engage in any behavior you wished as long as you didn't infringe on peaceful people. A country that respected the Constitution. A country that minded it's own business and didn't get involved in the so-called welfare of individual people or other nations.
    It's all not such a crazy idea after all, jl. We once had a truly free society, a libertarian society, before the likes of FDR, LBJ and nearly every other politican destroyed it!
    If anyone thinks they are truly free in this country, they don't know the true meaning of freedom.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2003
  20. justlooking

    justlooking

    Messages:
    25,481
    I'll wait for SkellyChamp to do the list. OF COURSE the state has the right to legislate such matters. This isn't a libertarian country, it's never gonna be a libertarian country, and for all that you might want to torture the Constitution, there is zero/zip/nada in it that could support the idea that this is a libertarian country with a minimal state.

    You can persuasively make arguments like yours when you get your own country (and I might prefer your country to the one we live in, although I probably wouldn't), but don't waste your time trying to argue that this country is like that.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2003