| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:45:56 AM | ...and I don't have to rent a house to a lawyer if I have a compelling reason to fear a spurious lawsuit.
Just sayin'.
edit: I was responding to Match's post, but he edited his so it looks like I'm just drifting...
oh well, I'll just leave it. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:21:40 AM |
It's the *government* that can't deprive a person of his right to life, except by due process--not some other person. The basis for state laws against murder is *moral disapproval.* Commandment VI: "You shall not murder."
Really, Match? Don't be ridiculous. How does that square with Amendment 1? | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:57:44 AM |
I have a compelling reason to fear a spurious lawsuit.
If the suit really were frivolous, you'd have no reason to fear it. Most lawyers aren't going around looking for people to sue. They also don't need people filing complaints against them with the State Bar. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:21:59 AM |
How does that square with Amendment 1?
The same way it squares to have the Ten Commandments inscribed all over the Supreme Court building. The Declaration says we're endowed "by our Creator" with the right to life. The Court's never even tried to claim the Constitution doesn't allow state murder laws to reflect the majority's moral convictions about right and wrong, or that those convictions can't in turn be based on religious beliefs. A Satanist whose rituals call for the blood of freshly murdered schoolchildren doesn't have a 1st Amendment claim against California's murder statute, on the ground that it imposes the Sixth Commandment on him. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:29:47 PM | Question: If prostitution were allowed by a new federal mandate, which congress member should we name the act after?
Well, John Boehner of course. With a name like that....it's a gimme.
If a girl needs to sell herself to make a living and support herself, then what moral authority am I, or anyone for that matter, to tell her she is any less of a person. "He who is without sin..." Providing sex is so bad, but charging $40 for an aspirin at the hospital is fine? I think the latter is far more immoral as they are taking advantage of an ill or injured person's vulnerability.
Just because the the hags in the Women's Christian Temperance Union couldn't keep their husbands at home, they lobbied for a law to get their husbands to stop satisfying themselves elsewhere. If those prudes would have been more skilled in the art of felatio, their husbands wouldn't have been getting it from other women who enjoy the art. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 2:27:24 PM | A Satanist whose rituals call for the blood of freshly murdered schoolchildren doesn't have a 1st Amendment claim against California's murder statute, on the ground that it imposes the Sixth Commandment on him.
I think you've been hitting the kool-aid there Match. The basis for our laws is the social contract, not the Bible. Let any self-righteous nincompoop engage in self-perceived eye-for-an-eye vigilantism, and none of us will be safe. We give the government a monopoly on the police power because we can expect disinterested third parties to apply that power rationally. However, we cannot do that if they're motivated by religious bigotry, now can we? | |
|
| |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 6:06:40 PM |
The basis for our laws is the social contract, not the Bible.
I had no idea it was at all controversial that criminal laws reflect our convictions about what's right and wrong, and these those convictions in turn are rooted in religious belief. That's why the Declaration states that "our Creator" endows us with those rights of life and liberty that government can't deprive us of, except by due process of law.
The Preamble states that one of the purposes of the Constitution is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty." The sense is perfectly consistent with the Declaration--"our Creator" has given us "blessings" by endowing us with the right to liberty, and now we've written this Constitution to secure that right.
I'm afraid you're not on very firm ground here. The writings of the Framers are full of references to God. We have one on our money. The concept of a government made of three branches, each one keeping the others in check, came from Montaigne. But in turn, he probably was influenced by the biblical concept that the Holy Trinity rules over all things, earthly and divine.
There's a reason the Constitution extends the judicial power of the U.S. to cases in "Law or Equity." Art. III, sec.2, cl.1. When courts in the U.S. issue writs like injunctions, and remedies like specific performance, they're acting not as courts of law, but as courts of equity. And they've kept some of the features of the church-run Chancery courts in England they derive from. One big difference from suits at law is that there's no jury when you sue in equity. (There's not always a right to a jury when you sue at law, either--that's why the 7th Am. "preserves" that right wherever it applied it in 1791.)
You seem to want to confuse all this with notions about a theocracy. Note: This is not Iran (however much a couple U.S. Presidents might wish it were.) The First Amendment prohibits anything even remotely approaching theocracy--the Court once struck down a state law that exempted a religious newspaper from paying the usual tax on its ink, for heaven's sake. But the Court's never tried to deny that most of the people who founded this country were Christians, or that that fact's reflected in our history, culture, laws, and government.
The Constitution first prohibited states from discriminating against blacks at the end of the Civil war. But except for that, for another 30 years it continued to limit only what the U.S.--the federal government--could do. It did *not* limit state governments, and where their own constitutions didn't prohibit it, states were perfectly free to make laws that imposed the majority's religious convictions on everyone. That wasn't nearly as oppressive as it sounds, though, because as compared with now, people then tended to have a more similar heritage and to agree more on basic moral issues. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 6:08:15 PM | | ACE, self-righteous nincompoops can be found in all belief systems, including yours, whatever it is. | |
|
| |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 10:19:54 PM | | I really don't have a problem with legalizing prostitution even if the cost does skyrocket as a result of it, becuase I've never used one and don't really plan to. It might even help solve out financial woes with all of the new tax revenue :-D | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 513 | |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:08:53 AM |
Really, Match? Don't be ridiculous. How does that square with Amendment 1?
quite clear actually. congress, read government, is restrited in amendment 1 and that's all who are restricted. like wise the government is restricted from depriving a person life or liberty in the constitution. the entire constitution is simply an instruction manual that "we the people" have given the written to tell the government how it will govern. applies to nobody or anything else. we don't arrest people for murder because the constitution says that murder is a crime. murder is a crime because we created laws that say it's a crime and nothing in the constitution prohibits such laws. when a crime is committed, due process takes over and criminals are puninshed. simple really. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:45:05 AM | Pffft... Does the authority for making laws derive from the Constitution or the Bible? Simple, really. When the Supremes strike down a state law, I have yet to hear them say they are doing so because it is "unbiblical."
The power of states to make laws is recognized in the 10th Amendment, and the Federalist papers debate it at length. I've read the Bible from stem to stern and I don't see a hint about it anywhere in there. Do you? If anything, the Bible disallows human law-making ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," "turn the other cheek").
Show me a law that doesn't protect a right or further some other legitimate state interest in the least invasive way, and I'll show you a law that, sooner or later, will be ripe for a successful Constitutional challenge.
As a Conservative, getting rid of onerous and unnecessary laws that unduly limit the free exercise of your rights should be right up your alley. Or is it just the sensibilities of a privileged class that you want to protect?
By your lights, this conflict we're having with those dreaded Muslims really is just about which "holy book" a person worthy of living must subscribe to, and the Founding Fathers were just kidding themselves. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 515 | |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:03:17 AM |
Pffft... Does the authority for making laws derive from the Constitution or the Bible?
even more simple. article one in the constitution.
Simple, really. When the Supremes strike down a state law, I have yet to hear them say they are doing so because it is "unbiblical."
yes. and why would you? we gave them the power to interpret the constitution, not the bible.
The power of states to make laws is recognized in the 10th Amendment, and the Federalist papers debate it at length. I've read the Bible from stem to stern and I don't see a hint about it anywhere in there. Do you? If anything, the Bible disallows human law-making ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," "turn the other cheek").
i don't concern myself with the bible so have no comment. just don't debate what i don't know a thing about. i know a thing or two about the constitution so i debate it. but i agree with you regarding what the 10th amendment says.
Show me a law that doesn't protect a right or further some other legitimate state interest in the least invasive way, and I'll show you a law that, sooner or later, will be ripe for a successful Constitutional challenge.
not quite clear what you ask here. but a law that doesn't protect a right would be a speed limit i suppose. actually deprives a right to drive as fast as you want. seat belt laws protect the legitimate enterst of the state by curbing medical costs. doubtful that either are ripe for challeng on constitutional grounds. but hey, knock yourself out if you do.
As a Conservative, getting rid of onerous and unnecessary laws that unduly limit the free exercise of your rights should be right up your alley. Or is it just the sensibilities of a privileged class that you want to protect?
By your lights, this conflict we're having with those dreaded Muslims really is just about which "holy book" a person worthy of living must subscribe to, and the Founding Fathers were just kidding themselves.
ah, obviously your post was directed at somebody else. but i'll stand by my comments. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:32:47 AM | I wonder how many of you guys/gals who are advocating the legalization of prostitution would feel if it were your Daughter who worked as a prostitute?
I mean, it's her body, her right to use it whichever way she chooses, eh? You could give her a ride to the health department every month to check for STD's and AID's, Fill her Christmas stocking with condoms, find her a good deal on g-strings on the internet.
Would you put that in your annual Christmas newsletter to Aunt Gertrude? "Little Missy finished high school and is now working the Strip in the Gaslight District. She is a favorite of the soldier's just back from Iraq. Specializing in the 50/50 and 'Round the World. She's doing her part, our little Patriot! Way to go Missy!"
Just wondering... | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 517 | |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:39:19 AM | | well there are worse careers. i sold life insurance for awhile and was so disgusted with myself i quite and had to go down to the mens room at the bus station and performed oral sex for a week to regain at least some of my self respect. | |
|
| |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:06:43 AM |
a law that doesn't protect a right would be a speed limit i suppose
No. The speed limit protects the right of other drivers to have equal access to the road. If you drive so fast that you create an unsafe condition for other drivers, you deprive them of the use of the road.
ah, obviously your post was directed at somebody else. but i'll stand by my comments.
I'll stand by your comments too! -smile- | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:17:50 AM |
I wonder how many of you guys/gals who are advocating the legalization of prostitution would feel if it were your Daughter who worked as a prostitute? ... You could give her a ride to the health department every month to check for STD's and AID's, Fill her Christmas stocking with condoms, find her a good deal on g-strings on the internet.
Well, I don't think I'd be all that keen on it. However, I'd much rather do that than fish her out of jail if that's what she's going to do anyway. And, I'd much rather she be able to go the sheriff, rather than a pimp, if a customer gives her trouble. And, I'd much prefer our scarce vice-squad resources go toward enforcing laws against child exploitation.
If my daughter is a big girl, I can't expect the government to rescue her, especially when rescuing her has the effect of punishing her and not the people who might well be exploiting her. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:12:52 AM | Does the authority for making laws derive from the Constitution or the Bible?
I was talking about the authority for the laws themselves--not a state's authority to make them.
If most of the people of a state believe one of their state laws is too burdensome, they're free to repeal or rewrite it any time. Again, the issue was not that, but whether a federal court has authority to strike that law down because *its judges* don't like what it does.
What I want to protect are the sensibilities of the majority, however ridiculous or out of step with the times I or anyone else may think they are. It's arrogant of the Justices to require all Americans to share their own worldly views of right and wrong, while claiming the Constitution demands it.
If you think Lawrence was just restricted to sodomy statutes, read it again. You seem to think it just said states can't make crimes of consensual sexual activities that the Justices (in their great and overweening wisdom) know couldn't possibly harm anyone else. Not so.
If the people of a state want to make incest or bigamy illegal, I can't see how a Supreme Court Justice can claim they're just being arbitrary. What business does the Court have forcing several Justices' personal views of social virtue on all of us? | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:13:21 AM | Mominatrix:
>>Interesting to note, the OP is not concerned with women sexually bored and frustrated with their husbands, but this aside... Whoops, Nevada has the highest divorce rates in the nation.
That's probably because so many out-of-state people go to Nevada for a quickie divorce. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 523 | |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:57:32 AM | No. The speed limit protects the right of other drivers to have equal access to the road. If you drive so fast that you create an unsafe condition for other drivers, you deprive them of the use of the road.
dead wrong. you asked me to show you a law that does not protect a right that would withstand a constitutional challange. i did that with laws limiting how fast we can drive. no traffic law protects a right and yet most withstand constitutional challenges. that was what you asked was it not? but regarles of whether the law protects a right, it does deprive you of the right to go whatever speed that you chose. if you don't think it deprives you of the right to go 30 mph faster than the limit then it should be a simple matter to prove your point. do just that until you are pulled over and given a ticket. then appear in court and argue your not guilty plea based on your constitutional right to drive as fast as you please. you will lose of course because your challenge of the law being unconstitutional gets beat with something along the lines of your very words, "If you drive so fast that you create an unsafe condition for other drivers, you deprive them of the use of the road". THAT'S WHY THE LAW WAS MADE TO DEPRIVE YOU OF THE RIGHT TO SPEED and you'll be punished for doing so. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:50:21 AM | | Would you put that in your annual Christmas newsletter to Aunt Gertrude? Little Missy finished high school and is now working the Strip in the Gaslight District. She is a favorite of the soldier's just back from Iraq. Specializing in the 50/50 and 'Round the World. She's doing her part, our little Patriot! Way to go Missy! And recently, the Department of Boneland Security gave Missy an award for alleviating post-traumatic stress syndrome by performing a flanking maneuver on entire columns of Marines. Someone even made a video of it for the internet. But she is worried about the growing competition from life insurance salesmen providing oral gratification to neo-classical economists in the lavatories of bus stations, and she heaps contempt on them by comparing them to grouchy dating site thread posters. Anyway, semper fi, Missy! | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:30:26 PM |
I was talking about the authority for the laws themselves--not a state's authority to make them.
When the very first thing you do is make the point that there is to be no establishment of religion, it should be pretty clear that the laws are not based on authority from religion.
The whole zeitgeist of the Constitutional debates was based on the social contract. You can argue that the concept of rights is rooted in the notion that we were imbued with them by the Creator. But as soon as rights come into play, you cannot then bypass them to inflict your morals on others in violation of their rights.
So which is it, Match? Individual rights, or the divinely ordained authority of Clerics? | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:35:58 PM | "If you drive so fast that you create an unsafe condition for other drivers, you deprive them of the use of the road". THAT'S WHY THE LAW WAS MADE TO DEPRIVE YOU OF THE RIGHT TO SPEED and you'll be punished for doing so.
There is no right to speed. The roads are public property and driving is a privilege. A law that mandated how fast you could go on your own private racetrack would be depriving you of a right, and if there was no good reason for it, it could be challenged successfully.
The only way a speed-limit law would deprive someone of a right is if it said that one sort of person could only go so fast while another sort could go much faster, even if they were both driving the same sort of vehicle with a similar degree of skill. There is no rational basis for a law like that, and it would clearly violate the equal protection clause. | |
|
Home
login 
