Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jul 28, 2016 0:22:44 GMT -5
Alright, so as many of you know my Facebook page is full of political, legal, and historical comments, posts, links, etc. One of my Facebook friends posted an interesting question, that I thought I might try to share with y'all.
This is not meant to be a political post, so I'm really wanting to leave politics out of it. This is meant to be a post regarding law, and how I found this post interesting. Something tells me that Steve Orbit will find it interesting as well...
My Facebook friend posted this;
"For a long time now the law states that as long as a sexual act is between consenting adults, it is legal. I wondered how long it would take, but it has finally happened.
A half dozen or so consenting adults were arrested for prostitution and pimping, and they are going to use the defense prostitution is covered by the SCOTUS ruling on sexual behavior between consenting adults. You have to admit, it does make sense.
I did not agree with the ruling when it came to legalizing perverted sexual behavior back when the Supreme Court made the ruling. I predicted this would be an eventual result.
Think about it. Why should a money exchange be a deciding factor in whether a behavior is legal or not?"
This is my response, of which I heavily edited because I got a bit too philosophical with it.
" Hmm.. An interesting concept. Are the laws regarding prostitution in fact illegal? If indeed we are guaranteed (not granted) basic rights in the Constitution, such as that of life, liberty, and property, and that the additional right of the pursuit of happiness is mentioned within the Declaration of Independence, then would not prostitution be covered as a legal act?
The Constitution lists a series of rights under the Amendments. Within these rights, prostitution is not listed. As it is not mentioned, it would naturally be referred to the States, as a power not delegated to the Constitution nor prohibited by it is therefore reserved to the State. However, at what point does the 9th Amendment come into play?
Does prostitution fall under our basic rights, even if not listed specifically within the Constitution? If, as Cesare Becarria stated, "Laws are the conditions of which men, naturally independent, united themselves in society", then would not everything be a right unless voluntarily surrendered?
Therein we find a conflict, not just within the Constitution itself, but within the very concepts of American law itself. If a law is a right that naturally independent people surrendered, then why does the 9th Amendment exist at all? If the State reserves all powers not contained within the Constitution, would not the 9th Amendment serve as some kind of magical Amendment that permits the Supreme Court, or Federal Legislators, to disregard whatever State laws they see fit?
By the Supreme Court stating that sex is an act between two consenting adults, they have indeed created the precedence to call into question all laws regarding consensual sex, including but not limited to prostitution.
If we go by the precedence set by the Supreme Court, then yes prostitution is indeed legal, and would be covered under the 9th Amendment of the Constitution along with all other forms of consensual sex. If we were to set our own precedence, then the question deserves more thought."
So... I was wondering what y'all thought on this idea. NOTE: I am not endorsing the legalization of prostitution, nor endorsing the prohibition of it.
This is not meant to be a political post, so I'm really wanting to leave politics out of it. This is meant to be a post regarding law, and how I found this post interesting. Something tells me that Steve Orbit will find it interesting as well...
My Facebook friend posted this;
"For a long time now the law states that as long as a sexual act is between consenting adults, it is legal. I wondered how long it would take, but it has finally happened.
A half dozen or so consenting adults were arrested for prostitution and pimping, and they are going to use the defense prostitution is covered by the SCOTUS ruling on sexual behavior between consenting adults. You have to admit, it does make sense.
I did not agree with the ruling when it came to legalizing perverted sexual behavior back when the Supreme Court made the ruling. I predicted this would be an eventual result.
Think about it. Why should a money exchange be a deciding factor in whether a behavior is legal or not?"
This is my response, of which I heavily edited because I got a bit too philosophical with it.
" Hmm.. An interesting concept. Are the laws regarding prostitution in fact illegal? If indeed we are guaranteed (not granted) basic rights in the Constitution, such as that of life, liberty, and property, and that the additional right of the pursuit of happiness is mentioned within the Declaration of Independence, then would not prostitution be covered as a legal act?
The Constitution lists a series of rights under the Amendments. Within these rights, prostitution is not listed. As it is not mentioned, it would naturally be referred to the States, as a power not delegated to the Constitution nor prohibited by it is therefore reserved to the State. However, at what point does the 9th Amendment come into play?
Does prostitution fall under our basic rights, even if not listed specifically within the Constitution? If, as Cesare Becarria stated, "Laws are the conditions of which men, naturally independent, united themselves in society", then would not everything be a right unless voluntarily surrendered?
Therein we find a conflict, not just within the Constitution itself, but within the very concepts of American law itself. If a law is a right that naturally independent people surrendered, then why does the 9th Amendment exist at all? If the State reserves all powers not contained within the Constitution, would not the 9th Amendment serve as some kind of magical Amendment that permits the Supreme Court, or Federal Legislators, to disregard whatever State laws they see fit?
By the Supreme Court stating that sex is an act between two consenting adults, they have indeed created the precedence to call into question all laws regarding consensual sex, including but not limited to prostitution.
If we go by the precedence set by the Supreme Court, then yes prostitution is indeed legal, and would be covered under the 9th Amendment of the Constitution along with all other forms of consensual sex. If we were to set our own precedence, then the question deserves more thought."
So... I was wondering what y'all thought on this idea. NOTE: I am not endorsing the legalization of prostitution, nor endorsing the prohibition of it.
