PDA

View Full Version : US Supreme Court: California can't ban violent video game sales to children




RonPaulFanInGA
06-27-2011, 08:42 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games


The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children.

The high court agreed Monday with a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors' rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

What about the second amendment rights to buy and own a gun? :confused:

(Or buy tobacco, buy alcohol, gamble, vote...)

Dr.3D
06-27-2011, 08:51 AM
Guns, alcohol and tobacco are not violent enough to allow children to have.




/s

teacherone
06-27-2011, 08:54 AM
huh??? so now kids can go to R rated movies?

NC17?

XXX???!!111!!

cindy25
06-27-2011, 08:56 AM
who were the two idiots who voted no?

AFPVet
06-27-2011, 08:57 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games



What about the second amendment rights to buy and own a gun? :confused:

The Constitution isn't exactly explicit about rights and age; however, the 26th Amendment sets the age of a "citizen" who can vote at 18. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that age 18 is where a citizen has all of his/her rights.

cindy25
06-27-2011, 09:00 AM
The Constitution isn't exactly explicit about rights and age; however, the 26th Amendment sets the age of a "citizen" who can vote at 18. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that age 18 is where a citizen has all of his/her rights.

what about 21 year drinking age?

Kade
06-27-2011, 09:02 AM
Decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Breyer dissenting, "As this Court has previously described that interest, it consists of both (1) the “basic”parental claim “to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children,” which makes it properto enact “laws designed to aid discharge of [parental]responsibility,”"

He's using a conservative argument for the dissent. Every once in awhile we see his original conservative taint coming out...

The other dissenter of course is our friend in tyranny, Thomas. I would have guessed Thomas and Alito, but I would have been wrong.

AFPVet
06-27-2011, 09:04 AM
what about 21 year drinking age?

The drinking age is technically unconstitutional.

Dorfsmith
06-27-2011, 09:08 AM
Anybody know which position the 10th Amendment center and other States' Rights groups took on this? (My guess is that they disagree with the court's decision?)

Kade
06-27-2011, 09:12 AM
what about 21 year drinking age?

The drinking age was forced on the states by rampant abuse of the Federal Funding of the Interstate system and another broad hyper extension of the commerce clause.

swiftfoxmark2
06-27-2011, 09:17 AM
I have a couple of questions:

How do violent video games speak out against the government? Isn't that what Freedom of Speech means? The right to speak against the government without harassment from the government?
Isn't this a loss for the Tenth Amendment? Shouldn't the sovereign States be allowed to regulate commerce as they see fit in their own way?

sailingaway
06-27-2011, 09:27 AM
For some reason I'm flashing back on an interview I saw during the Gulf war when the media was wowed with the (comparably) accurate military raids, and someone asked if the young generation video game controls similar to the controls in the cockpit were helping in any way. The general being interviewed chuckled and said, "You bet! We've been waiting for these kids to grow up and get here!"

Kregisen
06-27-2011, 09:27 AM
As anti-freedom as the state law is....I might have to side with California's right to do it. I don't see how that interferes with someone's freedom of speech, and the 14th amendment doesn't seem to have anything to do with this.

I agree with whoever said if states have the right to ban guns or tobacco at 18, then they have the right to ban violent video games at 18...still a stupid law though.

LibertyEagle
06-27-2011, 09:30 AM
For some reason I'm flashing back on an interview I saw during the Gulf war when the media was wowed with the (comparably) accurate military raids, and someone asked if the young generation video game controls similar to the controls in the cockpit were helping in any way. The general being interviewed chuckled and said, "You bet! We've been waiting for these kids to grow up and get here!"

Yup. I think a lot of the video games are pure indoctrination.

Kade
06-27-2011, 09:30 AM
As anti-freedom as the state law is....I might have to side with California's right to do it. I don't see how that interferes with someone's freedom of speech, and the 14th amendment doesn't seem to have anything to do with this.

I agree with whoever said if states have the right to ban guns or tobacco at 18, then they have the right to ban violent video games at 18...still a stupid law though.

The Bill of Rights is extended to the states. The State enacted a law that restricted speech in some form, the Supreme Court strikes down that law. I see no issue here.

Kade
06-27-2011, 09:32 AM
Yup. I think a lot of the video games are pure indoctrination.

Especially this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000JWY7SU/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk


So LE, are you still a mod?

RonPaulFanInGA
06-27-2011, 09:39 AM
The Bill of Rights is extended to the states.

Well, not originally. Not until the 14th amendment came along. The U.S. Constitution was initially only a restriction on the federal government.

Still can't see how one can say "banning the sale of violent video games to people under 18 violates their first amendment rights" but at the same time; probably every state prohibits the sale of firearms to people under 18 and there is a constitutional right to those. Hasn't the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of public schools suppressing student speech as well?

swiftfoxmark2
06-27-2011, 09:42 AM
The Bill of Rights is extended to the states. The State enacted a law that restricted speech in some form, the Supreme Court strikes down that law. I see no issue here.

How do violent video games speak out against the State? Do you what is meant by Freedom of Speech?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-27-2011, 09:42 AM
The states don't have to obey the corruption of the Supreme Court, but only be submissive to its authority. As the three branches of the Federal government can do whatever they decide to do, and as we are no longer a Republic, the individual states need to start functioning as the independent nations they were originally intended to be.
When the Supreme Court rules that parents aren't allowed to care for their children, the best parents will be able to do in order to comply with that ruling is take care of their children. This means the Supreme Court has become an ineffectual part of the Federal government and should be ignored collectively by the states.

Kade
06-27-2011, 09:45 AM
Well, not originally. Not until the 14th amendment came along. The U.S. Constitution was initially only a restriction on the federal government.

Still can't see how one can say "banning the sale of violent video games to people under 18 violates their first amendment rights" but at the same time; probably every state prohibits the sale of firearms to people under 18 and there is a constitutional right to those. Hasn't the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of public schools suppressing student speech as well?

It's originality is not an issue, although the early decisions before the 14th Amendment demonstrated a fondness for this extension from some Founders... this decision will only help Second Amendment advocates down the road. No reason to be upset about it.

Kade
06-27-2011, 09:45 AM
How do violent video games speak out against the State? Do you what is meant by Freedom of Speech?

Of course I do... do you?

Brian4Liberty
06-27-2011, 10:26 AM
Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

Huh? "Tradition" overrides rights?

Just more confusing and contradictory laws and interpretations...



...they beleive in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They beleive in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300145-Time-Magazine-cover-asks-if-the-Constitution-Still-Matters&p=3361119#post3361119

Brian4Liberty
06-27-2011, 10:27 AM
//

swiftfoxmark2
06-27-2011, 10:37 AM
Of course I do... do you?

So what is it?

Kade
06-27-2011, 11:19 AM
So what is it?

Freedom is action without constraints. Philosophically, freedoms can be anything a person declares in desire of an action. We have, however, as a society, placed constraints on certain actions based on criteria of the social contract we engage in... an example of this criteria is "physically harming another person" for instance. Freedom of Speech is no different than any other freedom in this regard. It is the action of expression, without any constraints.

You wrote:


How do violent video games speak out against the State? Do you what is meant by Freedom of Speech?

You are implying that in order to have Freedom of Speech, the limitation is "speak out against the State..". Freedom of Speech is not just limited in this regard, and has been defended successfully to exist in almost complete totality. Some philosophers, (good ones in my opinion) argue for complete and total free speech protections. Such modern advocates include Noam Chomsky: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." ...also many of the original founders thought likewise; Paine, Franklin, Jefferson etc..

So do I know what is meant by Freedom of Speech? Absolutely. It is an extension of Freedom of Thought, and I will defend this right to my death, and I will argue against willfully ignorant people who think differently...

----> It sounds to me like you want to pretend it only means in cases where the expression itself is against the STATE.

So, I ask again, do you know what is meant by Freedom of Speech?

affa
06-27-2011, 11:36 AM
For some reason I'm flashing back on an interview I saw during the Gulf war when the media was wowed with the (comparably) accurate military raids, and someone asked if the young generation video game controls similar to the controls in the cockpit were helping in any way. The general being interviewed chuckled and said, "You bet! We've been waiting for these kids to grow up and get here!"

While I have some significant issues with some of the things the author has said on his own time, all should read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game (and sequels) at some point.

Velho
06-27-2011, 11:42 AM
So... What about the parents? Why should the law control what games children buy when it's really the parents job to decide what's allowed for their little chicken nuggets. A responsible parent monitors how children use their money and confiscates anything they consider harmful. Or is that against the constitution as well. :D

AFPVet
06-27-2011, 11:58 AM
So... What about the parents? Why should the law control what games children buy when it's really the parents job to decide what's allowed for their little chicken nuggets. A responsible parent monitors how children use their money and confiscates anything they consider harmful. Or is that against the constitution as well. :D

Exactly. The rights of the parents govern children. Once they turn 18, they are adults. The parents should be the ones creating the rules for their children—not the government.

erowe1
06-27-2011, 12:10 PM
who were the two idiots who voted no?

What business does the Supreme Court have telling California they can't do that?

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-27-2011, 12:12 PM
The Constitution isn't exactly explicit about rights and age; however, the 26th Amendment sets the age of a "citizen" who can vote at 18. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that age 18 is where a citizen has all of his/her rights.

I think we can safely conclude that the lack of an age restriction implies the Government acknowledges our rights as human beings, not at arbitrary age distinctions. If the Government can tell us at what age we get our rights, it's wide open for abuse, not to mention that it would have been abhorrent for the majority of Americans in 1787. (Cue in other arguments of those around here that the Constitution was in part based on the DoI -- I'd like for your to find me an age when you get your god-endowed rights...I suppose Age 0 counts :p)

erowe1
06-27-2011, 12:12 PM
Well, not originally. Not until the 14th amendment came along. The U.S. Constitution was initially only a restriction on the federal government.

Still can't see how one can say "banning the sale of violent video games to people under 18 violates their first amendment rights" but at the same time; probably every state prohibits the sale of firearms to people under 18 and there is a constitutional right to those. Hasn't the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of public schools suppressing student speech as well?

Even the 14th Amendment didn't do that, nor was it intended to. It was only later court rulings that reinterpreted the 14th amendment that way.

LibertyEagle
06-27-2011, 12:13 PM
So LE, are you still a mod?

Nope. :D

Humanae Libertas
06-27-2011, 12:59 PM
The law was already struck down back a couple years ago by California's Federal Court. A Supreme Court ruling was not necessary.

Kade
06-27-2011, 01:04 PM
The law was already struck down back a couple years ago by California's Federal Court. A Supreme Court ruling was not necessary.

Those in favor of the law had a right to test the Constitutionality of the issue in the Supreme Court.

Danke
06-27-2011, 01:15 PM
For some reason I'm flashing back on an interview I saw during the Gulf war when the media was wowed with the (comparably) accurate military raids, and someone asked if the young generation video game controls similar to the controls in the cockpit were helping in any way. The general being interviewed chuckled and said, "You bet! We've been waiting for these kids to grow up and get here!"

The first Gulf War? Those pilots didn't grow up with video games, unless Pong counts.

RonPaulFanInGA
06-27-2011, 01:33 PM
I think we can safely conclude that the lack of an age restriction implies the Government acknowledges our rights as human beings, not at arbitrary age distinctions. If the Government can tell us at what age we get our rights, it's wide open for abuse, not to mention that it would have been abhorrent for the majority of Americans in 1787.

So in your fantasy world: children can legally smoke, drink alcohol, gamble, drive a car, vote, join the military, purchase and carry a handgun concealed, etc.?

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-27-2011, 01:36 PM
So in your fantasy world: children can legally smoke, drink alcohol, gamble, drive a car, vote, join the military, purchase and carry a handgun concealed, etc.?

According to the Constitution --- sure, but when has that ever been followed (sans vote, but I don't consider voting a 'right')? (Also, you may note that it is legal per most State Constitutions also, but those are followed even less than the Federal one)

swiftfoxmark2
06-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Freedom is action without constraints. Philosophically, freedoms can be anything a person declares in desire of an action. We have, however, as a society, placed constraints on certain actions based on criteria of the social contract we engage in... an example of this criteria is "physically harming another person" for instance. Freedom of Speech is no different than any other freedom in this regard. It is the action of expression, without any constraints.

So you are saying is that the First Amendment allows for violations of the Non-Aggression Principle? When someone murders someone else, is not the murderer making an expression or action of expression?

I know murder is extreme in this case, but you've made a very weak argument here. I do not believe that you have thought all that hard about the true nature of Freedom. For example, what constraints are we discussing here? In some sense, TARP was an action of freedom because the banking executives were constrained by failure. So not bailing them out would have violated their freedom to make money, which is an action of expression. On the other hand, the money used to protect their action of expression was taken from the backs of taxpayers of the future whose own action of expressions with that money was violated. All the while the government was in the middle determining the appropriate action of expressions.

When you consider that all actions have consequences and that those consequences can act as constraints, then there is no such thing as freedom as you have defined it.

My point is that we have expanded freedom of speech that is found in the First Amendment well beyond what the Founding Fathers had determined. They wanted a Republic where individuals would be free to speak out against their leaders and even their government without fear of reprisal since words do no harm on their own. If you read the First Amendment, you'll note that "Speech", "Press", and "Peaceably Assemble" are clumped together in a manner that implies actions against the government.


You are implying that in order to have Freedom of Speech, the limitation is "speak out against the State..". Freedom of Speech is not just limited in this regard, and has been defended successfully to exist in almost complete totality. Some philosophers, (good ones in my opinion) argue for complete and total free speech protections. Such modern advocates include Noam Chomsky: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." ...also many of the original founders thought likewise; Paine, Franklin, Jefferson etc..

So do I know what is meant by Freedom of Speech? Absolutely. It is an extension of Freedom of Thought, and I will defend this right to my death, and I will argue against willfully ignorant people who think differently...

----> It sounds to me like you want to pretend it only means in cases where the expression itself is against the STATE.

So, I ask again, do you know what is meant by Freedom of Speech?

I did not make a limitation of any kind, except toward the government itself. To me, the term "Freedom of Speech" as used in the Constitution means that the government cannot stop citizens from speaking out against it. If we are to allow the government to guarantee liberty through its force, then what liberty have we gained as a result?

In this particular case, there was no violation of the principle of Freedom of Speech. The act of purchasing a violent video game is a neutral act with regards to it being for or against the government. In this sense, the State of California was not violating the free speech rights of children by denying them a violent video game.

Instead, this was, like most other things, a State's Rights issue. Even though I disagree with the law, the State of California had the sovereign right, under the Tenth Amendment, to pass such a law and enforce it, considering that nothing in the Constitution says they could not.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-27-2011, 01:58 PM
So you are saying is that the First Amendment allows for violations of the Non-Aggression Principle? When someone murders someone else, is not the murderer making an expression or action of expression?

I know murder is extreme in this case, but you've made a very weak argument here. I do not believe that you have thought all that hard about the true nature of Freedom. For example, what constraints are we discussing here? In some sense, TARP was an action of freedom because the banking executives were constrained by failure. So not bailing them out would have violated their freedom to make money, which is an action of expression. On the other hand, the money used to protect their action of expression was taken from the backs of taxpayers of the future whose own action of expressions with that money was violated. All the while the government was in the middle determining the appropriate action of expressions.

When you consider that all actions have consequences and that those consequences can act as constraints, then there is no such thing as freedom as you have defined it.

My point is that we have expanded freedom of speech that is found in the First Amendment well beyond what the Founding Fathers had determined. They wanted a Republic where individuals would be free to speak out against their leaders and even their government without fear of reprisal since words do no harm on their own. If you read the First Amendment, you'll note that "Speech", "Press", and "Peaceably Assemble" are clumped together in a manner that implies actions against the government.



I did not make a limitation of any kind, except toward the government itself. To me, the term "Freedom of Speech" as used in the Constitution means that the government cannot stop citizens from speaking out against it. If we are to allow the government to guarantee liberty through its force, then what liberty have we gained as a result?

In this particular case, there was no violation of the principle of Freedom of Speech. The act of purchasing a violent video game is a neutral act with regards to it being for or against the government. In this sense, the State of California was not violating the free speech rights of children by denying them a violent video game.

Instead, this was, like most other things, a State's Rights issue. Even though I disagree with the law, the State of California had the sovereign right, under the Tenth Amendment, to pass such a law and enforce it, considering that nothing in the Constitution says they could not.

In a Republic the people are sovereign, not the State/Government. I think you have your definitions and understanding mixed up. The State does not have a right to interfere in a trade in which no violations of property rights have occured (aka fraud / thievery). There should be no law either mandating the sale, or not mandating the sale. To say the State has this right, is to say the State owns us, and that principle is abhorrent.

Kade
06-27-2011, 02:02 PM
So you are saying is that the First Amendment allows for violations of the Non-Aggression Principle? When someone murders someone else, is not the murderer making an expression or action of expression?

I know murder is extreme in this case, but you've made a very weak argument here. I do not believe that you have thought all that hard about the true nature of Freedom. For example, what constraints are we discussing here? In some sense, TARP was an action of freedom because the banking executives were constrained by failure. So not bailing them out would have violated their freedom to make money, which is an action of expression. On the other hand, the money used to protect their action of expression was taken from the backs of taxpayers of the future whose own action of expressions with that money was violated. All the while the government was in the middle determining the appropriate action of expressions.

When you consider that all actions have consequences and that those consequences can act as constraints, then there is no such thing as freedom as you have defined it.

My point is that we have expanded freedom of speech that is found in the First Amendment well beyond what the Founding Fathers had determined. They wanted a Republic where individuals would be free to speak out against their leaders and even their government without fear of reprisal since words do no harm on their own. If you read the First Amendment, you'll note that "Speech", "Press", and "Peaceably Assemble" are clumped together in a manner that implies actions against the government.



I did not make a limitation of any kind, except toward the government itself. To me, the term "Freedom of Speech" as used in the Constitution means that the government cannot stop citizens from speaking out against it. If we are to allow the government to guarantee liberty through its force, then what liberty have we gained as a result?

In this particular case, there was no violation of the principle of Freedom of Speech. The act of purchasing a violent video game is a neutral act with regards to it being for or against the government. In this sense, the State of California was not violating the free speech rights of children by denying them a violent video game.

Instead, this was, like most other things, a State's Rights issue. Even though I disagree with the law, the State of California had the sovereign right, under the Tenth Amendment, to pass such a law and enforce it, considering that nothing in the Constitution says they could not.

You've mixed my argument quite a bit, I almost feel like I've started a "debate" with my girlfriend. I don't think you read the decision. The precedent in this case was that of graphic comics. Graphic comics can and have shown a history of governmental commentary, and videos games were demonstrated to also contain possible governmental and political commentary, which under the fourteenth amendment, the state had no right to ban. It's really that simple.

We can however go back to your ridiculous notion of a freedom coming from the government, because honestly, that is what it sounds like you are saying when you start using constraints as wildly as you are...I specifically avoided assuming any constraint was a worthy reason for limitation on any freedom, and because of the complications involved in properly defining freedom based on such criteria, I only summarized it. What I did say, very clearly, was that I believe in perfect freedom of speech and thought, meaning that there is no conceptual restraint I can think of in limiting either... That being said, I don't look towards the government to protect that freedom, only to not be the facilitator of its demise.

When it is about individual freedom, I make it clear that I side with the individual. This is a pretty clear cut case, if parents don't want their kids playing violent video games, then they should keep a better eye on them. The concept of a group's (State's in this case) rights sounds more statist than me on my worse day... frankly.

Pericles
06-27-2011, 02:14 PM
The first Gulf War? Those pilots didn't grow up with video games, unless Pong counts.
F-15 Strike Eagle was about it as far as computer games went in 1990.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-27-2011, 02:15 PM
In a Republic the people are sovereign, not the State/Government. I think you have your definitions and understanding mixed up. The State does not have a right to interfere in a trade in which no violations of property rights have occured (aka fraud / thievery). There should be no law either mandating the sale, or not mandating the sale. To say the State has this right, is to say the State owns us, and that principle is abhorrent.

Could you please discuss this matter in terms concerning the Civil Purpose of the people versus the legal precedence of tyranny? Thank you.

swiftfoxmark2
06-27-2011, 02:27 PM
You've mixed my argument quite a bit, I almost feel like I've started a "debate" with my girlfriend. I don't think you read the decision. The precedent in this case was that of graphic comics. Graphic comics can and have shown a history of governmental commentary, and videos games were demonstrated to also contain possible governmental and political commentary, which under the fourteenth amendment, the state had no right to ban. It's really that simple.

We can however go back to your ridiculous notion of a freedom coming from the government, because honestly, that is what it sounds like you are saying when you start using constraints as wildly as you are...I specifically avoided assuming any constraint was a worthy reason for limitation on any freedom, and because of the complications involved in properly defining freedom based on such criteria, I only summarized it. What I did say, very clearly, was that I believe in perfect freedom of speech and thought, meaning that there is no conceptual restraint I can think of in limiting either... That being said, I don't look towards the government to protect that freedom, only to not be the facilitator of its demise.

When it is about individual freedom, I make it clear that I side with the individual. This is a pretty clear cut case, if parents don't want their kids playing violent video games, then they should keep a better eye on them. The concept of a group's (State's in this case) rights sounds more statist than me on my worse day... frankly.

Read the next phrase carefully: I did not nor have I advocated that government determines freedom.

You have, however, in another comment to someone else:


Those in favor of the law had a right to test the Constitutionality of the issue in the Supreme Court.

Do not project your own attitudes onto me and then claim I am wrong. That statement above, which was written by you, it a clear admission that freedom comes from government and not individuals.

You also seem confused about the context here. I was referring to this specific case in which we are talking about States rights versus what is permissible under the Constitution for the Federal government.

I have stated that I was opposed to the law, but that I don't believe it was the Supreme Court's place to strike it down, but the citizens of the State of California.

Do not box me in to black and white thinking. I actually do agree with you that this law was bad and that for the sake of liberty, it should not have been enacted. However, I believe this is the wrong way and it will lead to greater tyranny down the road since decisions like this empower the Supreme Court to make other decisions regarding what is and is not freedom.

Kade
06-27-2011, 02:32 PM
Read the next phrase carefully: I did not nor have I advocated that government determines freedom.




Do not project your own attitudes onto me and then claim I am wrong. That statement above, which was written by you, it a clear admission that freedom comes from government and not individuals.

You also seem confused about the context here. I was referring to this specific case in which we are talking about States rights versus what is permissible under the Constitution for the Federal government.

I have stated that I was opposed to the law, but that I don't believe it was the Supreme Court's place to strike it down, but the citizens of the State of California.

Do not box me in to black and white thinking. I actually do agree with you that this law was bad and that for the sake of liberty, it should not have been enacted. However, I believe this is the wrong way and it will lead to greater tyranny down the road since decisions like this empower the Supreme Court to make other decisions regarding what is and is not freedom.

In no way does that statement endorse freedom derived from government. People do have a right to test the Constitutionality of an issue... that is not a commentary on a person's freedom or right, only that which the government can and cannot do under the social contract.... not to mention that none of this endorses that they even have a right to do any of it... some people live outside this social contract, and make a pretty compelling argument for it... that is a much longer conversation.

Your twisting my words either way... You can be secure in the knowledge that I generally agree with the decision as it was written, to which I linked earlier. ciao

swiftfoxmark2
06-27-2011, 02:34 PM
In a Republic the people are sovereign, not the State/Government. I think you have your definitions and understanding mixed up. The State does not have a right to interfere in a trade in which no violations of property rights have occured (aka fraud / thievery). There should be no law either mandating the sale, or not mandating the sale. To say the State has this right, is to say the State owns us, and that principle is abhorrent.

I apologize for not making the context clear: within the scope of the United States Constitution, the State of California has a right to enact such a law. They are allowed, under the Constitution to regulate commerce within their borders, as all other States do with regards to many other things from alcohol to over the counter medicine.

That does not mean that they should enact such laws. Having the ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. In this case, the law was a bad law but the Supreme Court had no business taking it up.

erowe1
06-27-2011, 03:23 PM
F-15 Strike Eagle was about it as far as computer games went in 1990.

I'm not quite old enough to have been in Operation Desert Storm, but I was still pretty addicted to my Nintendo around 1987-90, and had been to my Atari 2600 before that. I'm sure some of the guys a few years older than I could say the same. We didn't care about the fact that 20 years later those games would be considered sucky.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-27-2011, 04:52 PM
Read the next phrase carefully: I did not nor have I advocated that government determines freedom.

You have, however, in another comment to someone else:



Do not project your own attitudes onto me and then claim I am wrong. That statement above, which was written by you, it a clear admission that freedom comes from government and not individuals.

You also seem confused about the context here. I was referring to this specific case in which we are talking about States rights versus what is permissible under the Constitution for the Federal government.

I have stated that I was opposed to the law, but that I don't believe it was the Supreme Court's place to strike it down, but the citizens of the State of California.

Do not box me in to black and white thinking. I actually do agree with you that this law was bad and that for the sake of liberty, it should not have been enacted. However, I believe this is the wrong way and it will lead to greater tyranny down the road since decisions like this empower the Supreme Court to make other decisions regarding what is and is not freedom.

The President has no place. Congress has no place. The Supreme Court has no place. If the House of Representatives decided to sit in on matters concerning Constitutionality, it could do so. If the Supreme Court decided to sit on over the rules established to control the functions of the House and the Senate, it could do so. If the President decided to appoint three hundred Supreme Court justices, he or she could do so.
The Civil Purpose of the people is the only certainty declared by our Founding Fathers. The rest is legal precedence enacted to establish it as an ideal.

QueenB4Liberty
06-27-2011, 05:07 PM
So are parental consent labels on cds violating rights? (Do they even have those anymore?)

I don't think the Supreme Court made the right decision, although I do believe it is up to the parents to decide what their children do, this is clearly a states rights issue.

BamaAla
06-27-2011, 05:42 PM
Those in favor of the law had a right to test the Constitutionality of the issue in the Supreme Court.

Are you sure? It seems like the lower courts ruling should have stood.

cindy25
06-27-2011, 05:44 PM
is this the first time ever that Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides?

madfoot
06-27-2011, 06:45 PM
The drinking age was forced on the states by rampant abuse of the Federal Funding of the Interstate system and another broad hyper extension of the commerce clause.

This.

It's not unconstitutional like AFPVet said, but it's sure as hell manipulative.

madfoot
06-27-2011, 06:52 PM
I apologize for not making the context clear: within the scope of the United States Constitution, the State of California has a right to enact such a law. They are allowed, under the Constitution to regulate commerce within their borders, as all other States do with regards to many other things from alcohol to over the counter medicine.

That does not mean that they should enact such laws. Having the ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. In this case, the law was a bad law but the Supreme Court had no business taking it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

I understand incorporation is unpopular around here, but it is the law.

LibForestPaul
06-27-2011, 07:01 PM
So, would a law criminalizing sale of sexual explicit video games hold water, and why?

LibForestPaul
06-27-2011, 07:04 PM
The authorities in this country have always had an aversion to sex, nudity, and a penchant for violence. Why?

madfoot
06-27-2011, 07:05 PM
So, would a law criminalizing sale of sexual explicit video games hold water, and why?

Obscenity, I suppose.

Imho, obscenity shouldn't be a first amendment exception. Between this and the WBC, it's been all but overruled anyway.

Vessol
06-27-2011, 07:05 PM
The authorities in this country have always had an aversion to sex, nudity, and a penchant for violence. Why?

Pandering to the religious.

AFPVet
06-27-2011, 07:07 PM
This.

It's not unconstitutional like AFPVet said, but it's sure as hell manipulative.

Which is exactly why it is unconstitutional. When we went over this in my constitutional history class, we talked about how businesses got involved with politics which—in turn—become involved in the matters of the Court. The Commerce Clause was never designed to be used for this. This is much like the Forgoing Powers Clause which is also responsible for a lot of craziness. All it takes is the interpretation from a few good justices to get things back on track. Misuse of a government power is illegitimate and therefore unconstitutional.

Vessol
06-27-2011, 07:10 PM
Which is exactly why it is unconstitutional. When we went over this in my constitutional history class, we talked about how businesses got involved with politics which—in turn—become involved in the matters of the Court. The Commerce Clause was never designed to be used for this. This is much like the Forgoing Powers Clause which is also responsible for a lot of craziness. All it takes is the interpretation from a few good justices to get things back on track. Misuse of a government power is illegitimate and therefore unconstitutional.

Meh. When you look at those who wrote the Constitution(Hamilton, Adams, and the Federalists in general) I'm not really surprised there was a lot of "mistaken" holes all over the Constitution for them to use and abuse right from the start.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/davies2.1.1.html

"Ever since 1803, America's government has pretended to operate a limited, democratic republic but has actually been an oligopoly of lawyers. And since Article Three was crafted (and left blank) with all deliberate intent, I suggest that's the way the founders always planned it. The 1789 Judiciary Act was a kind of delayed-action poison pill, a really cunning plot, planned and executed by those honored even today as the founders of a free society. And this is perfectly logical; the notion that a government (something that governs) can ever be subject to limits (things that prevent governing) is nonsense on its face, an absolute contradiction."

AGRP
06-27-2011, 07:15 PM
http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/157/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_47063.jpg

Brett85
06-27-2011, 07:48 PM
is this the first time ever that Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides?

No. They're on opposite sides more often than you would think.

idirtify
06-27-2011, 09:44 PM
Originally Posted by LibForestPaul
The authorities in this country have always had an aversion to sex, nudity, and a penchant for violence. Why?


Pandering to the religious.

Yes, but that’s because the majority of Americans have the same aversion and penchant.

Kade
06-28-2011, 06:59 AM
is this the first time ever that Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides?

No, off the top of my head, they have disagreed about Federalist constraints before, notably in Gonzales v. Raich: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

Krugerrand
06-28-2011, 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by LibForestPaul
The authorities in this country have always had an aversion to sex, nudity, and a penchant for violence. Why?



Yes, but that’s because the majority of Americans have the same aversion and penchant.

Deep-rooted puritan mindset.

idirtify
06-28-2011, 10:20 AM
Deep-rooted puritan mindset.

Yes, and deeper rooted obsession with pain and fear of pleasure.