Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22130)	11/3/2004 2:59:56 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Respond to of 23153

Ed, Of course, I understand the concept of the limitations of powers (the Congress shall make no law etc.). The problem comes from the courts which decided to expand the 1st Amendment's protection AGAINST THE ABRIDGEMENT OF FREE SPEECH, which I believe we all can agree was originally meant to cover political speech, to areas of artistic expression, lurid behavior, etc. I believe a strict constructionist court might cut back on those parameters, and allow the legislatures the opportunity (or a constitutional amendment) to legislate an interdiction on restrictions against nude dancing, licensed prostitution, lewd displays without endangering a single citizen's right to constitutional freedom. Of course, to a certain extent, the Constitution is a living document (as I noted with regard to the establishment clause vis a vis religion) and must be interpreted. But if no one who started this country believed they were protecting nude dancing and lewd behavior, and if no legislature has ever voted into law legalization or protection (and countless times legislatures have voted in restrictions on such activities), then where does the constitutional protection come from (except for the decisions of activist courts and judges)?? Kb