Sun Tzu,
You surprise me:
"A woman's right to dance naked seems to be fairly self evident (to me anyway) under the "pursuit of happiness" portion of life and liberty"
First of all, the pursuit of happiness isn't in the Constitution, that is, it ain't the law. That's in the Declaration which is, for these purposes, a meaningless document. Not even dicta (to non lawyers, you may read the word "dicta" as "bupkis").
So you must mean that it is part of her right to free speech (1st Amendment) which should not be abridged? How do you get there? Is it because if she dances naked in a public place (restaurant, shop, strip joint) it somehow expresses her "view" of life? She can do it if it causes no direct harm? Again, this doesn't come from the law, it must come from your imagination.
Why should what you call a "live theatre or dance performance", assuming it involves taking off most of all of one's clothing, be protected, CONSTITUTIONALLY?
Again, if the founders didn't act to protect it, and no legislature acted to protect it, and it is only protected by the radical decisions of judges ("Pornography? I know it when I see it," Justice Stewart, how weak!), then it is not, or should not be, under our self-governing system, a protected right. Which means legislatures and city councils should be able to make laws permitting it and restricting it. Right?
This is the problem with guns and gun control. It appears, in some decisions, to be an absolutely protected right; but we can still change it. We can regulate guns reasonably where it doesn't bump up against the right to bear arms, and we can amend the Constitution to, in a limited or unlimited way, allow the regulation of guns.
Kb |
