Archive for bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Open discussion on just about any topic
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People
Nigel

The Oldest Profession

Could someone point where in the constitution, the government has the right to make prostitution illegal?

From where is this authority to regulate a victimless transaction between two people behind closed doors derived?
bieramar

First, prostitution as defined as a "victimless transaction between two consenting adults behind closed doors," is not illegal under federal law and/or the U.S. Constitution. Prostitution is legal in a number of counties in Nevada - local option under the Nevada Constitution.

However certain types of prostitution, and commercial sex trafficking, are illegal under federal law; specifically the Mann Act.

Both the prescription in Nevada and the federal proscriptions are derived out of the Constitution paragraphs
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," or
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction," or
"to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Basically transporting any person across a state line or pueblo/reservation boundary for "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" (Pub. L. No. 99-628, 100 Stat. 3511–3512.) is a federal crime.

Which thus focuses your question on state and local laws which make prostitution illegal within the respective jurisdictions, and thus subject to the federal Mann Act.

I'm thinking about that, and will be back.
coebul

Adding to bieramar's points I would add.   The Constitution is the rule book by which the government works.  Not a set of laws to live by...  It sets up the powers and authority of the various parts of government...  The three bodies....  Legislative, executive, Judicial, the States, the Amendment process.....  The Bill of rights came after the Constitution was ratified...  But the X Amendment state quite clearly:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

And we have been fighting over this Amendment since 1791.
bieramar

Here's a good summary of the late 19th and early 20th century rationales and state laws which made prostitution illegal: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-...cinating-history-sex-work-america
Nigel

BOR

How does one reconcile prostitution arrests with the bill of rights?
coebul

Are you serious?  Have you read them?
Nigel

Why Yes I Have

Have you?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue"

"right of the people to be secure in their persons"

How is a woman's body doe snot fall under "secure in their persons"?  Her sexual proclivity and her consort's generosity is non of the government's business.  

Who exactly is the injured? The victim?
bieramar

Phrased another way, why haven't the state anti-prostitution laws, passed under the states rights provision of the Tenth Amendment, been overturned as unconstitutional under the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments?

I don't know, and having been an advocate and activist for personal rights since the sixties - seeing state laws banning miscegenation, contraception, sodomy, and cunnilingus in the private setting declared unconstitutional in the last fifty years - I'm surprised.

The following is excerpted from Lawrence et al vs. Texas:

[Begin] Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice;… Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons." 478 U. S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution.[End]

SCOTUS still holds prostitution as an exception!

I'm still thinking.
coebul

Bieramar he isn't talking about states.  He believe (I think) the IV amendment provides for prostitution!  

What ever!  A silly idea not worthy of discussion.

I'm out! (Shark Tank).
Nigel

The Providers

It doesn't provide for it.  The amendments don't provide for things. They delineate inalienable rights.

As such, the state or federal government has no standing telling two consent adults what they can or cannot do in private with their own bodies.
bieramar

Re: The Providers

Nigel wrote:
As such, the state or federal government has no standing telling two consent[ing] adults what they can or cannot do in private with their own bodies.


And when you read the excerpt I posted, that's exactly what SCOTUS ruled in the Lawrence case, until the prostitution exception!

I have now found the legal rationale for why the states' prostitution laws have not [yet] been ruled unconstitutional like the state's contraception, abortion, and sodomy laws have been.

The current federal position is that prostitution is not a private act, but rather is a commercial transaction. And it is not victimless.  Therefore the federal government has a compelling government interest which takes precedence over individual privacy rights.

The compelling government interest is to preserve traditional moral values, akin to moral laws banning incest, polygamy, and obscenity.

Furthermore, the fact of economic motivation in the commercial transaction mitigates against prostitution being a truly consensual act; in fact prostitutes are exploited, and connected with organized crime and the spread of infectious diseases.

So, not only are traditional moral values preserved, but also the scondary anti-society results are prevented - in toto the compelling interest to continue to criminalize prostitution.

Each challenge to a state prostitution law argues against one or more of those government claims - thus far none have prevailed.
scrutney

Re: Why Yes I Have

Nigel wrote:

"right of the people to be secure in their persons"

How is a woman's body doe snot fall under "secure in their persons"?  Her sexual proclivity and her consort's generosity is non of the government's business.  

Who exactly is the injured? The victim?


why doesn't it fall under the first amendment which has been remorselessly bent to include freedom of expression?

and what better way to express oneself than...ya know...thingy?

if it sounds like i'm being glib...perish the thought.

i've been told online line many times, by the artists who were given the old st george street shuffle (here's your hat, what's your hurry?) that they were engaging in 1st amendment protected activity, despite the fact that they were remunerated, which isn't commerce...(go figure...) it's something else entirely...and they've got some kangaroo court case from new york to prove it.

hey...if commerce is free speech, if corporations are people and if a right to abortion is based on a right to privacy...why can't being a professional mattress dancer be "freedom of expression"?

ahhh...art...it feeds the soul.

edited to add:
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".....


Nigel

Falling Down

"Furthermore, the fact of economic motivation in the commercial transaction mitigates against prostitution being a truly consensual act; in fact prostitutes are exploited, and connected with organized crime and the spread of infectious diseases. "


That argument is an unmitigated failure and not remotely grounded in reality.

Commercial and consensual are not by any stretch of the imagination mutually exclusive.  The vast majority of commercial transactions are consensual.

The only reason it is connected with organized crime is the fact it's illegal. As to social disease rates, in the parts of the western world where prostitution is legal the social disease rates are much much lower. Which is common sense sense because the working girls are regulated and have frequent checkups.  Further the prostitutes themselves are 1000 times less likely to be victimized and exploited by violent pimps. Not to mention it's millions of dollars in the legitimate economy.  

Laws against prostitution are clearly based entirely on religious grounds. Which actually violates the 1st Amendments "endorsement clause"
bieramar

The argument, however, has not yet been found a failure in a federal court through the appelate process to SCOTUS.

Thus, the "compelling governnent interest" prevails.

Personally I share your opinion, and if the Mann Act was actually applied and enforced, or if New Mexico's prostitution laws were, I would join an effort to get rid of them (like we have re the anti-contraception, anti-cunnilingus, anti-anal intercourse, etc. laws during my lifetime).

Indeed, laws based upon religious doctrine violate the "endorsement clause".  But that is different fron laws based upon "traditional moral values" (like laws banning incest, polygamy, pornography and obscenity). Again I share a concern about religious doctrine masquerading as moral values in the legal government position regarding prostitution, but I acknowledge that prostitution is opposed by people of many religious and/or moral beliefs.

In the news today: http://abcnews.go.com/Internation...on-france-punish-clients-21014321
Nigel

Interesting TImes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25468587

How interesting,..............

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum