Is prohibition of vice constitutional?

The court of justice is in session.

Liberty is on trial for alleged crime of vice.
Liberty pleads innocent of crime and claims peaceful pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right that is retained by the people.

Justice calls for proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that constitution authorizes prohibition of peaceful pursuits.
Justice calls for proof not only that law has been broken; but that law is constitutional and just.

Liberty relies on public defense.

Is prohibition of vice constitutional?
The bench is open for questions.
Let the trial begin.

I think this is another one of your non-starter GD topics. While only a couple of us in SDMB would argue that many of the Blue Laws should be in place, a similarly small number of us think that the Constitution itself prohibits them.

I would argue that it is not, based on the Establishment Clause. The Court probably wouldn’t buy it, but I see legislating based on morality as functionally equivalent to establishing a state church. They don’t tell you what God to believe in, but they do load up a whole bunch of “Thou Shalt Nots”.

Why did you start a new thread, when you started a thread just last week on pretty much exactly the same issue? The only issue you really care about is your idiosyncratic definitions of words.

Your honor, I move that the case be dismissed, due to lack of jurisdiction. Liberty is not a citizen of the United States, nor is liberty an entity subject to the laws of the United States, and therefore may not be tried by a United States Court.

Case dismissed!

The examination of the OP is in session.

rwjefferson is on trial for alleged crime of posting a completely illegible Great Debate.
rwjefferson pleads innocent of crime and claims peaceful pursuit of knowledge as an inalienable right that is retained by the people.

The Great Debates Forum calls for discussion (reasonably) that the forum authorizes discussion of serious questions only.
The Great Debates Forum calls for proof not only that the post is worthy of discussion; but that the OP endeavor to make his point clear and easy to understand.

rwjefferson relies on internet anonymity to avoid taking part in the discussion.

Is prohibition of opaque, nonsensical questions constitutional?
The bench is open for questions.
Let the trial begin.

Afraid the motion to dismiss for not making any damn sense must be sustained.

To challenge the constitutionality of a statute, the burden is on the Defendant to identify a specific right that is violated by enforcement of the statute. I see no claim of such here.

I’m outta order? I’m outta order? This whole COURT is outta order!

You can’t handle the peaceful pursuit!

Cause when you put your hand into the pile of meaningless words that used to be your best friend’s thread…

wait, wrong movie.

Is Stanley v Georgia still good law on this issue? It said that private possession of obscene materials was constitutionally protected, but that the State could still restrict sale and public display.

The idea is that the individual had a right to privacy, freedom of reading material, and to look at obscene material if he wanted, but that the community also had the right to have its values protected and that other individuals in the community had the right not to be exposed to it if they didn’t want to. As far as I know, the courts still take that approach.

Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,
a tale of a peaceful quest.
That started from this message board,
inside this tiny thread.
The mate was a peaceful questing man,
the OP pretty vague.
Five passengers set sail that day,
for a three page deabte, a three page debate………

Which Blue Laws do they (you) argue as just?
Would you deny liberty on equal doubt or demand proof beyond reasonable doubt?
What about your own liberty?
Prove that the inalienable right of peaceful pursuit of happiness is not retained by the people; no matter the law.
Think is not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Justice demands proof, not think.

The public court of justice is not beholden to any other court’s decision. Yes, we look for the truth in those decisions, but they serve only as precedence. We seek liberty and justice for all; no matter earlier tyranny. Justice notes the testimony that vice laws cross the just separation of church and state and are therefore unjust. Can any offer evidence this is not so?

I try to keep my threads on track. Some of US have active and open minds and one question or answer leads to another. This is a different question. Please answer this one. Besides, it is liberty on trial, not my definitions.
Please reveal your testimony one way or the other if you have any. Otherwise I will consider you as a hostile witness.
Also please offer and allow explanation for any definitions you find might find idiosyncratic. I will assume you understand the difference between idiosyncratic and untrue.

Overruled. You have not proved that the submitted birth certificate of liberty is void or invalid.

Overruled. Call your own court. Besides, I will plead innocent by reason of insanity from having to watch liberty so often violated by tyrants and their tyranny.

Overruled, liberty claims violation of peace(ful pursuit) by enforcement of unjust or unconstitutional law. Justice grants liberty inalienable right to fair trial in court of justice before she may justly be denied.

Justice still awaits proof that vice laws are not both unjust and unconstitutional.


It’s like Patrick Henry got kicked in the head by a horse…

On matters of obscenity, the line is being pushed back so far that it may as well be nonexistent. If you want to talk about drugs, then as I understand it, the laws restrict the import, transport and sale, rather than the use per se.

I know it’s not your strong suit, but some specifics would really be helpful.

There are lots of laws that are justified as being conducive to social order. None of them are forbidden by the constitution. And while some of them are the result of prudishness or puritanism, some of the make sense to me, at least. I’m all for legalizing pot, but Angel Dust or Crystal Meth? No thanks.

How come you never hear about Angel Dust any more?

I remember when I was a kid back in the 70s the newspapers were full of Angel Dust this, Angel Dust that, Angel Dust everywhere. Nowadays the only place you’ll hear about Angel Dust is on a Starsky and Hutch rerun. What happened?

People still smoke a lot of dust. They call it “dip” now, I think, due to the process of dipping joints or blunts into liquid PCP. When I served on a Grand Jury, I was astonished how many crimes we looked into involved someone “dipping” at some point. You don’t read about it in the papers because the media stopped being hysterical about dust in the early '80’s when they started being hysterical about crack. Now they’re hysterical about meth.

Justice acknowledges the regulation of equal right of peaceful pursuits; prohibition does not.
Yet liberty is still prohibited from certain peaceful pursuits.

Please explain what you mean by “specifics”. By definition, the alleged crime of vice has no victim. This seems proof that the pursuit of vice is peaceful; no matter the specific morality.

I am one that first asked for specifics. Please cite the article of the constitution that proves peaceful pursuit of happiness is not retained by the people; no matter how immoral. If specifics make for easier understanding, cite the article of constitution that proves sodomy is not a right retained by the people.


“Vice” is a general descriptive term. Do you know of a law that actually says “The act of vice is forbidden” with no further detail?

People have been asking you for specifics for as long as you’ve been starting threads around here, as far as I can tell, with no success.