Legal Question

[Masked Monkey]

And I think the US federal government should make the law. It would be easier to have an universal law than having a confusing patchwork of 50 different state laws.

The problem with the US federal government making "sex" laws that applies to all 50 states is simply that they don't have the authority under the US constitution. In the cases of foreign or interstate travel, and on federal land, they do have clear laws. The federal age of consent is 18. I do not believe that federal law has an age difference exemption, thus, if you and your bf can legally have sex in your state, but you go to a national park within that state (assuming you are both under 18) and have sex while camping, you could both be arrested and face federal charges. If you are an adult and cross state lines to have sex with a minor, or facilitate a minor to cross state lines to have (otherwise legal) sex with you, you have violated federal law.

 

If the federal government were able to regulate sex laws, they would have carte blanch to make similar regulations for anything within the states, and this would totally invalidate the reasons for having states in the first place, and the "federal" form of government. Since (unlike the former Soviet Union) there is no provision for a state to secede from the Union, the removal of the ability to create their own laws would create the identical circumstances that lead to the Civil War.

 

Just like you can go to the grocery store and choose your brand of bread, soda, and potato chips, you have equal freedom to move to a state that has laws more suited to your personal beliefs. That is something I would rather never see changed, even if it means you have to keep track of which states you have to wear your seat belt in, and which ones you don't.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

[SRV1984]

Those things? No.

Showing the world her vagina? Yes.

Operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt while cradling a child in her lap? Yes.

Making a fool of herself at parties? Yes.

 

I don't read the tabloids. Two years ago I had to write a paper on American tabloids... by the time I handed that paper in I was so with the American public that I became physically ill and nearly vomited. That said, the only news I hear of Spears is of the same kind as young Paris Hilton. Fortunately for Britany, her shenanigan's (sp?) haven't earned her a neat little ankle bracelet. Good for her. As for her little sister, she should have known better. I don't think even Britany would have been so careless.

 

So, what is shocking isn't the fact that photographers go as low as possible to get shots such as the "vagina" shots? (Oh by the way, classy Christina Aguilera also showed the world her vagina, while being pregnant on top of that, but apparently since her name isn't Britney Spears, it doesn't matter.)

 

The car incident; she was getting away from paparazzis who don't even care that there're babies around and blind them with flashes and scare them but I guess one must think that's alright since people were shocked that Britney didn't wear panties and not that someone bent down to have that angle shot. But then again, why not keep the babies in the house all the time, right? They don't deserve to go out or anything, since they're Britney's babies. Those superstars, what do they think? That they can take their kids out to enjoy a nice day? Fools! If they do, then they're just attention seekers. Good for them if the babies get hurt or worse. That'll teach them!

 

Making a fool of herself at parties? So, she doesn't have the right to enjoy herself like everyone else? How many of you here have made fools of yourselves at parties? Or elsewhere? And if you're going to use the "but she's a mother" argument, then I'm guessing mothers are condemned to not party and have a good time? (And let's not forget that she doesn't party with her babies in her arms.)

 

With that said, she should've known better than not to wear underwear given her situation, and driving without a seatbelt was dangerous but she made a mistake while rushing to get away from people who were scaring her children. (But I'm guessing the biased opinions about her, it's easier for people to think she's a terrible mother and all that. Makes them feel better about themselves, I guess.)

 

I believe she's at a point where she simply doesn't give a f**K about what people think of her. Whatever she does, she'll be burned to the stake. She can't leave the country to go to a saner place because of her divorce in process.

 

No wonder she enjoyed her stay in France and other places in Europe, because guess what? Not one paparazzi shot of her was taken during her visits. Why? Because the law is so severe against those people that they leave the country for the USA, otherwise they'd need to find another job.

 

I wonder how long would all those who easily spit on her would last in her shoes, being constantly bullied by the media and the tabloids. Constantly criticized for doing what everybody else does, like apparently, partying is a no-no for her. Or go to the supermarket. Or buy food that she wants.

 

And have your every little mistake showed to the world and being pointed at and laughed at every time.

 

P.S. This isn't personal against rknapp, just responding to his post.

Edited December 25, 2007 by SRV1984

[Masked Monkey]

paparazzis

 

Oh, I love the argument ... the paparazzi made me do it.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

[Demetz]

About the only area where I sympathize with celebreties is when it comes to paparazzi/media. I get a dark pleasure whenever I hear about paparazzi getting punched out or having their feet run over by a celebrity for not backing off and leaving them alone. The right to privacy, while not explicitly listed in the constitution, is something I hold dear, and when people invade that privacy constantly and are seriously freakin rude about it... I feel some small vindication when they get their just rewards for it....

[SRV1984]

Oh, I love the argument ... the paparazzi made me do it.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

 

When was the last time a pack of aggressive paparazzis chased you while you were driving your car with your kids and knocking on the vehicle and windows, trying to take pictures at the same time? When was the last time you went for a coffee and 30 paparazzis tailed you within inches yelling and screaming and blinding you with their camera flashes? When was the last time you were walking with your baby in your arms and have several paparazzis bumping into you and blocking your way? Please, do tell. I'm curious to hear about your experiences.

Edited December 25, 2007 by SRV1984

[shadowgod]

When was the last time a pack of aggressive paparazzis chased you while you were driving your car with your kids and knocking on the vehicle and windows, trying to take pictures at the same time? When was the last time you went for a coffee and 30 paparazzis tailed you within inches yelling and screaming and blinding you with their camera flashes? When was the last time you were walking with your baby in your arms and have several paparazzis bumping into you and blocking your way? Please, do tell. I'm curious to hear about your experiences.

 

when was the last time any of us went apeshit bizerk and shaved our heads?

 

Point is fame is fickle and its a bad trade off, you can't want/have fame and privacy it's an oxymoron.

 

As far as "paparazi" go yeah, they can be overbearing, but quit honestly they arent going to hound a celebrity for pictures they can't sell. That is just bad economics on their end. So don't blame the paparazi, that argument only goes so far. If she ceased doing crazy shit the interest and zeal to get a picture of her doing her next apeshit bizerk moment would fade away.

 

I could see the "it's the papazzi's fault" if every celebrity was hounded to death.

 

Funny how she crops up again when the we havent heard from her in a while huh?

 

There is no such thing as bad publicity... your only famous as long as they remember your name.

[Demetz]

If she ceased doing crazy shit the interest and zeal to get a picture of her doing her next apeshit bizerk moment would fade away.

 

You're missing the part where they deliberately provoke celebrities and/or drive them to insanity for their readers or viewers amusement. My face lit up with joy upon hearing about, and subsequently watching the video of, Britney running over the foot of a papparazzi. Its just too bad she didn't do it deliberately and run it over again.

[SRV1984]

when was the last time any of us went apeshit bizerk and shaved our heads?

 

Point is fame is fickle and its a bad trade off, you can't want/have fame and privacy it's an oxymoron.

 

As far as "paparazi" go yeah, they can be overbearing, but quit honestly they arent going to hound a celebrity for pictures they can't sell. That is just bad economics on their end. So don't blame the paparazi, that argument only goes so far. If she ceased doing crazy shit the interest and zeal to get a picture of her doing her next apeshit bizerk moment would fade away.

 

I could see the "it's the papazzi's fault" if every celebrity was hounded to death.

 

Funny how she crops up again when the we havent heard from her in a while huh?

 

There is no such thing as bad publicity... your only famous as long as they remember your name.

 

So to you, simply walking down a street to grab a coffee is seeking publicity? Because that's what most paparazzis shots (which are such on high demand, as you say) are of her. And obviously, the more they harass her, the more likely she's going to snap. I know you want to think she's some Goddess who can take anything, but she's only human.

 

When she shaved her head, not only was she at a difficult point in her life but the constant bullying from paparazzis took its toll. Obviously, since they're always there, they caught that moment. Logic. And excuse me, but Britney Spears doesn't need paparazzis to stay in the minds of people. It's not by being in a tabloid for eating doritos that she became the 8th Best Selling Artist in American Music History. Way before this mess, she already marked her name down in the music world, whether you like it or not.

 

Publicity stunts she did, or participated in, were the famous kiss with Madonna (Christina kissed Madonna too, but that went unnoticed), dancing with a snake, wearing a illusioned-diamond outfit in Toxic. She didn't ask for paparazzis to violently tail her through her daily routines. If that sort of publicity helped to sell, then Paris Hilton's album should be the best selling album of all time, or Lindsay Lohan's movies should've been incredible blockbusters. Were they? No. Because that sort of publicity doesn't serve any purpose but to ruin someone's image.

 

Again, I'm pretty sure a lot of people here went through periods in their lives where they went "apeshit bersek" which would compare to shaving a head. All you have to do is go in some parts of this very forum to find some stories of the like. But hey, those people are in need and were in a difficult position, so we can feel for them. And we would be cruel to not feel for them. But if it's Britney Spears, then no, she's just seeking publicity and there's no way she's going through a hard time.

 

But contrary to Britney Spears, your actions are not recorded and discussed at length. And you have the luxury to deal with your issues on your own and at your own pace. Simply saying "oh any publicity is good publicity" doesn't work all the time. The paparazzis have always been ferocious. Go ask Lady Di.

Edited December 25, 2007 by SRV1984

[Jack Frost]

The problem with the US federal government making "sex" laws that applies to all 50 states is simply that they don't have the authority under the US constitution. In the cases of foreign or interstate travel, and on federal land, they do have clear laws. The federal age of consent is 18. I do not believe that federal law has an age difference exemption, thus, if you and your bf can legally have sex in your state, but you go to a national park within that state (assuming you are both under 18) and have sex while camping, you could both be arrested and face federal charges. If you are an adult and cross state lines to have sex with a minor, or facilitate a minor to cross state lines to have (otherwise legal) sex with you, you have violated federal law.

 

If the federal government were able to regulate sex laws, they would have carte blanch to make similar regulations for anything within the states, and this would totally invalidate the reasons for having states in the first place, and the "federal" form of government. Since (unlike the former Soviet Union) there is no provision for a state to secede from the Union, the removal of the ability to create their own laws would create the identical circumstances that lead to the Civil War.

 

Just like you can go to the grocery store and choose your brand of bread, soda, and potato chips, you have equal freedom to move to a state that has laws more suited to your personal beliefs. That is something I would rather never see changed, even if it means you have to keep track of which states you have to wear your seat belt in, and which ones you don't.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

I am well aware of them. Canada works in the same way as the USA, except that the sex law is the federal government's power (because it's a criminal law). But Canadian federal government has less power than the US federal government. The Swiss government is even more "weaker" than the Canadian and US counterparts, yet it has the power to set an age of consent. If Switzerland and Canada, all federations, could do it, I cannot see why the USA shouldn't. And I don't see why it'll shatter the centuries-old traditions of having the state powers if the US federal government sets an age of consent.

 

I have to add it wouldn't be the first time that the USA does this. For example, it wasn't the federal power to decide on the drinking age, but the government managed to "blackmail" the states to either raise the age to 21 or the states will not get highway fundings. The government forced the states to accept "Leave No Child Behind" law by threatening to pull out education money if the states do not comply, despite the fact that education is solely state power. The federal government pulled this stunt many times.

 

The federal age of consent is 18. I do not believe that federal law has an age difference exemption, thus, if you and your bf can legally have sex in your state, but you go to a national park within that state (assuming you are both under 18) and have sex while camping, you could both be arrested and face federal charges. If you are an adult and cross state lines to have sex with a minor, or facilitate a minor to cross state lines to have (otherwise legal) sex with you, you have violated federal law.

Frankly I don't give a shit. Who really does? Stories of teenager sex in national parks speak themselves enough. I'm just surprised there are really some people who take this seriously and they all tend to be gay.

[Masked Monkey]

And I don't see why it'll shatter the centuries-old traditions of having the state powers if the US federal government sets an age of consent.

 

I have to add it wouldn't be the first time that the USA does this. For example, it wasn't the federal power to decide on the drinking age, but the government managed to "blackmail" the states to either raise the age to 21 or the states will not get highway fundings. The government forced the states to accept "Leave No Child Behind" law by threatening to pull out education money if the states do not comply, despite the fact that education is solely state power. The federal government pulled this stunt many times.

What you refer to as "centuries-old traditions", I call the US Constitution.

 

and for the record ..

Highway funds only cover INTERSTATE highways, that being a specific power given to the US Federal governement by that "centuries-old traditions".

 

The US Department of Education has no constitutional authority and should not exist in the first place. As for hard numbers, in 2006-2007 (FY2007), the state of California spent ~US$48 Billion on K-12 and the feds added ~US$4 Billion. As far as I'm concerned, they should keep the money and reduce taxes. Let the states deal with it.

 

I suppose the feds could withold medicid payments to states that have "unacceptable" sex laws, but again, that would result in Civil War

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

[scoopny]

The federal age of consent is 18. I do not believe that federal law has an age difference exemption, thus, if you and your bf can legally have sex in your state, but you go to a national park within that state (assuming you are both under 18) and have sex while camping, you could both be arrested and face federal charges. If you are an adult and cross state lines to have sex with a minor, or facilitate a minor to cross state lines to have (otherwise legal) sex with you, you have violated federal law.

 

 

Technically with the federal law you have to travel to another state with the intent to have sex. If your intent is to camping and you have sex you've not run afoul of the law. It's all about intent here. You just need a good excuse for why you both left the state. Although here's an interesting wrinkle. Say you're 18 and your boyfriend is 17 and you guys live in different states. And you show off to each other on cam. That's against federal law, technically that's child pornography.

 

 

For example, it wasn't the federal power to decide on the drinking age, but the government managed to "blackmail" the states to either raise the age to 21 or the states will not get highway fundings. The government forced the states to accept "Leave No Child Behind" law by threatening to pull out education money if the states do not comply, despite the fact that education is solely state power. The federal government pulled this stunt many times.

 

The federal government is allowed to condition the grant of money on the state's following a rule. For example, the federal government gives money to fix the interstate highway system on the condition the drinking age is 21 or that the speed limit is a certain number. The federal government could condition the receipt of education money from the federal government on the fact states make students pass state education tests. If each state didn't want to follow the rule, they didn't have to take the money. If the federal government wanted to establish a nationwide age of consent, they probably could. There's very little the modern federal government could do if it put it's mind to it.

[C James]

Technically with the federal law you have to travel to another state with the intent to have sex. If your intent is to camping and you have sex you've not run afoul of the law. It's all about intent here. You just need a good excuse for why you both left the state. Although here's an interesting wrinkle. Say you're 18 and your boyfriend is 17 and you guys live in different states. And you show off to each other on cam. That's against federal law, technically that's child pornography.

 

Good point, but I think it would be child porn even if both are minors, per the statutes.

[scoopny]

Oh yeah I guess the cam would be considered child pornography, as long as they were in different states. Do you want to know the real irony of that internet law? It was championed by none other than former Congressman Mark Foley.

Edited December 25, 2007 by scoopny

[JamesSavik]

I still say wait untill they are thirty.

 

The Neo-Puritianism that is taking hold here in the States is really quite frightening.

 

With all of the grandstanding politicians, judges and prosecutors lining up for soccer mom votes, before long if you are accused of a sex crime, you'll be shot without a trial and your rotting corpse will be left in the street. As it stands, sex crimes are the only exception to innocent until proven guilty.

 

The problem is that we have created a monster that can easily be mis-used to destroy almost anyone with the thinest of circumstantial evidence.

[scoopny]

Well the real danger is if you're happen to be 18 or 19 and dating someone underage. Otherwise they rarely apply the law to two underage people. And well they can't apply the law to two people over the age of 18, no matter what kind of kinky sex people over the age of 18 have consensually. It's really much better than when you could go to jail for sodomy, the sodomy laws were only invalidated four years ago. Just try not to get caught having sex in public.

[FrenchCanadian]

I still say wait untill they are thirty.

 

The Neo-Puritianism that is taking hold here in the States is really quite frightening.

 

With all of the grandstanding politicians, judges and prosecutors lining up for soccer mom votes, before long if you are accused of a sex crime, you'll be shot without a trial and your rotting corpse will be left in the street. As it stands, sex crimes are the only exception to innocent until proven guilty.

 

The problem is that we have created a monster that can easily be mis-used to destroy almost anyone with the thinest of circumstantial evidence.

 

Oh ya, it's surely interesting, for sex related crime it seems that it's guilty until proven innocent, and even when you're proven innocent, people will always look at you a special way.

 

and when it includes younger it's even worse.

[Jack Frost]

What you refer to as "centuries-old traditions", I call the US Constitution.

 

and for the record ..

Highway funds only cover INTERSTATE highways, that being a specific power given to the US Federal governement by that "centuries-old traditions".

 

The US Department of Education has no constitutional authority and should not exist in the first place. As for hard numbers, in 2006-2007 (FY2007), the state of California spent ~US$48 Billion on K-12 and the feds added ~US$4 Billion. As far as I'm concerned, they should keep the money and reduce taxes. Let the states deal with it.

 

I suppose the feds could withold medicid payments to states that have "unacceptable" sex laws, but again, that would result in Civil War

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Just to clear this up...I'm an American too, but I study in Canada.

 

When I said "centuries-old traditions", I included the Constitution, but the concept in the American history is even older than the Constitution itself....going all the way back when the English colonists started settling the East Coast.

 

I support the state rights and federal concepts as much as you do, but sometimes there are a few areas that could be better. Just some ideas to fine-tune the federal framework of the country. I don't think I would like to live in a country where the power is very centralized (like France) because it's foreign and a way too big government to me.

 

The federal government is allowed to condition the grant of money on the state's following a rule. For example, the federal government gives money to fix the interstate highway system on the condition the drinking age is 21 or that the speed limit is a certain number. The federal government could condition the receipt of education money from the federal government on the fact states make students pass state education tests. If each state didn't want to follow the rule, they didn't have to take the money.

And personally, it gets on my nerves sometimes. Especially with setting a drinking age.

 

There's very little the modern federal government could do if it put it's mind to it.

I would have to admit I agree. I never thought it would have a big chance anyway.

[AFriendlyFace]

Making a fool of herself at parties? Yes.

I gotta agree with SRV on this one! Who hasn't made a fool of themselves at a party before? Goodness knows I'd hate for footage of me at any one of quite a few parties I've attended over the last several years to surface.

 

Even if you're not much of a "partier " I think we can all admit we've made fools of ourselves and had embarrassing moments at some time or another.

 

So, what is shocking isn't the fact that photographers go as low as possible to get shots such as the "vagina" shots? (Oh by the way, classy Christina Aguilera also showed the world her vagina, while being pregnant on top of that, but apparently since her name isn't Britney Spears, it doesn't matter.)

I don't think that's particularly shocking. They're going to do whatever they can to get the juiciest ( ) shot they can. I thinks it's unfortunate what they do and I wouldn't personally be able to reconcile being a member of the paparazzi to my morals beliefs (and thus wouldn't choose that profession), but I think the actions are expectable.

 

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that's it's such a big deal. So she wasn't wearing underwear? Who cares? Depending on the outfit I've often gone commando too. Admittedly, I've always done so in some form of pants, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal for a woman in a skirt/dress to do it. YES, she should definitely avoid wind, and situations in which her skirt will ride up (like getting out of a car), but if she's comfortable with that risk I really don't think it's our business.

 

I would have a problem with it if she'd made a big deal about the picture being taken or people looking, because if you do that I think you've got to accept and acknowledge that risk and you know what you're getting yourself into. But unless she's doing this at schools and churches I think it's her business. No one has to look and if someone does accidentally catch a glimpse it's really not that big a deal UNLESS people make it a big deal. Geez, grow up US society!

 

About the only area where I sympathize with celebreties is when it comes to paparazzi/media. I get a dark pleasure whenever I hear about paparazzi getting punched out or having their feet run over by a celebrity for not backing off and leaving them alone. The right to privacy, while not explicitly listed in the constitution, is something I hold dear, and when people invade that privacy constantly and are seriously freakin rude about it... I feel some small vindication when they get their just rewards for it....

Hmm on an emotional level I agree with you for the most part but...

 

Point is fame is fickle and its a bad trade off, you can't want/have fame and privacy it's an oxymoron.

 

 

There is no such thing as bad publicity... your only famous as long as they remember your name.

 

I definitely agree with Steve on these two points.

 

If that sort of publicity helped to sell, then Paris Hilton's album should be the best selling album of all time, or Lindsay Lohan's movies should've been incredible blockbusters. Were they? No. Because that sort of publicity doesn't serve any purpose but to ruin someone's image.

I still think that overall that publicity was good for them. If their work still weren't smash hits than perhaps it was just because it didn't have the necessary quality, or because it just didn't resonate with the audience, but I think publicity (bad and good) had done a great deal for Lindsey and Paris, and definitely helped their careers. If they still didn't have wild success it just goes to show that there is a limit to how far publicity can get you. At some point you either have to be talented or have something very marketable.

 

For the record, I happen to think Lindsey Lohan is a solid actress. I haven't seen that many of her movies, but every one I have seen I've thought she was good, or at least perfectly adequate. I think most of the movies themselves just aren't good enough to be hits.

 

The Neo-Puritianism that is taking hold here in the States is really quite frightening.

 

With all of the grandstanding politicians, judges and prosecutors lining up for soccer mom votes, before long if you are accused of a sex crime, you'll be shot without a trial and your rotting corpse will be left in the street. As it stands, sex crimes are the only exception to innocent until proven guilty.

 

The problem is that we have created a monster that can easily be mis-used to destroy almost anyone with the thinest of circumstantial evidence.

Amen to that!

 

Just like you can go to the grocery store and choose your brand of bread, soda, and potato chips, you have equal freedom to move to a state that has laws more suited to your personal beliefs. That is something I would rather never see changed, even if it means you have to keep track of which states you have to wear your seat belt in, and which ones you don't.

I have to add it wouldn't be the first time that the USA does this. For example, it wasn't the federal power to decide on the drinking age, but the government managed to "blackmail" the states to either raise the age to 21 or the states will not get highway fundings. The government forced the states to accept "Leave No Child Behind" law by threatening to pull out education money if the states do not comply, despite the fact that education is solely state power. The federal government pulled this stunt many times.

What you refer to as "centuries-old traditions", I call the US Constitution.

 

Hmmm, personally I'm very much with Frosty on this one. First of all the way people tend to treat the constitution as essentially "infallible" really irritates me. YES, I think it's a very important document, it's extremely well and thoughtfully written, and it's very relevant. However, like everything else, it's constrained by the time period and context in which it was written. If people can't adapt to new circumstances and situations then society is doomed. Abortion, gay rights, global warming, a nuclear world...none of these things were even slightly on the radar when the constitution was written. Looking to it as the only and final answer to these questions strikes me as somewhat foolish.

 

The world changes, people change, society change, if the government doesn't change with them...

 

Personally I think this is very much akin to looking to the Bible to answer these questions. The Bible is also wonderful, and vitally important, and I respect it immensely. I'll even go so far as to say it may have been 'infallible' in the time and context in which it was written. As a Christian I do believe that it is the word of God. However, that doesn't mean that everything in it is literal or that we should still follow unthinkingly without taking its (and more importantly our) context into consideration.

 

Let me be grandiose and imagine myself as God and/or a contributer to the Constitution.

 

I may very well look at something and say, "Nope, we can't have that!" or "Yes, we definitely need to do this.", but I've got a reason. For example: "no, we can't encourage gay sex" because we really really need people to reproduce and spread Christianity (no longer the case, but true enough at the time). Or "Yes, we must have the electoral college" because the average citizen is too ill-informed to make a good decision (also true enough at the time, but hopefully no longer the case).

 

Assuming I'm still that very same diety and/or founding father I would look around today and exactly reverse those decisions based on our (over) population and the prolific nature of political coverage in the media. All four decisions would have been/are "correct" in their given time period(in my personal opinion that is, and obviously I'm biased since those are my personal opinions), but their contexts and reasons are vitally important and ever changing. We - and these institutions - must evolve or face extinction.

 

Anyway, I suspect these positions won't be especially popular, and I apologize if I offended anyone. Also, I attempted to keep my discussion of government as non-partisan and possible, and similarly keep my discussion of religion as respectful as possible. These are just my opinions and I readily allow for the likelihood that other people's opinions are just as "correct" (which I don't believe in, in an absolute sense anyway, especially with regard to these matters) and "valid" as mine.

Take care everyone and have a great day

-Kevin

Edited December 26, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[scoopny]

I agree with friendly face. Our constitution was written with very vague terms for a reason, because no one at the constitutional convention could agree to more definite terms. If you read the text of the constitution, it often leaves more questions than answers. For example what does "due process of law" mean? What does equal protection mean? What does the first amendment mean? It might seem obvious at first, the government can't restrict your speech, but clearly that's not true because you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. So what speech can the government restrict? And why? When the 14th amendment was passed after the civil war, no one thought "equal protection" of the law prohibited segregation of the races. But clearly that wouldn't fly today. What I mean to say is the constitution is a living document, maybe that's because it's so hard to amend our constitution (maybe England is right not to have a constitution at all save the Magna Charta) so we take the vague terms of the document and endow them with new meaning to suit a changing world. This doesn't make what we do wrong, it's just the way we've adapted to our constitution.

[JamesSavik]

Bear in mind that when the constution was written, there were several huge cans of worms left completely undisturbed because those issues were simply too devisive: slavery of course was number one on the list pitting North vs South. Others were the status of debts owed to foreign companies incurred before the revolution, Indian affairs, alcohol (abolition or management), land policy and a host of others.

 

The issues tended to be more of local than national interest. eg. Land policy was a no brainer in original 13 colonies but how do you handle it in newer territories like those gained by the Louisannia Purchase or the far West? The Indian nations in the east, the so called civilized tribes were a sedate lot. The plaines indians and those further west however were quite fierce. Eastern states were generally apathetic about indian affairs but to the territories, it was a matter of life and death.

 

These were issues on which no national consensus could be reached and were handed off to the various states for the most part. States weren't given carte blanch to do just anything they wanted.

 

The early supreme court spent a great deal of its time defining the limits and bounds of both federal and state powers.

 

Some of these matters were returned to the Fed by the Court. In 1812 Congress created the General Land Office which eventually became the Bureau of Land Management. In 1824 the Bureau of Indian Affairs was created to curb graft and corruption in dealing with the independent tribes by oppertunists in the territories.

 

Other powers were returned to the states- like the imposition of various taxes, the granting of franchises and licenses , etc.

 

Point being: historically these powers have been shifted from state to federal levels and vice versa typically after one or both of those entities had royally screwed it up.

 

A good case could be made for a national age of consent: as it stands now, it is confusing, contradictory and so uneven from state to state that the issue begs for oversight. This is not something that can be done by congress alone. It would involve a supreme court decision followed by congressional action. Last but not least, the state laws that we seek to superceed have to be proven discrimitory or unconstutional and struck down.

 

I would suspect the the broadest type comprimise would be made where the federally recognized age of adulthood is defined as 18 with 16 being the age of consent for partners 3 years.

 

Nothing radical but some states would raise hell over it.

[Tiger]

Age of Consent varies from state to state, but many have "buffers" where a minor and a legal adult can have sex if they're within a certain age range. In California, I think its 3, in Pennsylvanis its 4, in Florida, I think it's 16 to 24 (been a while since I checked that one so don't quote me on that).

 

There's also an issue of federal law when involving the transportation of minors across state line for the purposes of sex. Namely, under federal law its illegal to transport a minor under the age of consent in their own state to a state where they are within the age of consent to have sex with.

Missouri has a "buffer" as well. 17 is the overall age of consent, but a 14 year old can be with someone who is up to 17. A 15 year old can be with an 18 year old and so on. Here's the really tricky part. Missouri, unfortunately, used to have sodomy laws. The USSC declared the sodomy laws unconstitutional. I'm not sure if that means that the age of consent is the same for M2M and F2F. Does anyone know how that works? Personally, I have no intention of bedding a 17 year old but others might.

[scoopny]

Missouri has a "buffer" as well. 17 is the overall age of consent, but a 14 year old can be with someone who is up to 17. A 15 year old can be with an 18 year old and so on. Here's the really tricky part. Missouri, unfortunately, used to have sodomy laws. The USSC declared the sodomy laws unconstitutional. I'm not sure if that means that the age of consent is the same for M2M and F2F. Does anyone know how that works? Personally, I have no intention of bedding a 17 year old but others might.

 

LOL. Well, thanks to the Lawrence decision, which struck down sodomy laws, age of consent laws should apply equally no matter the gender of the participants. But the supreme court hasn't specifically said this, but it did suggest that was the law in a case involving a Kansas teen who was 18 who had sex with someone who was a week before his 15th birthday and got a harsher sentence than he would have gotten if the pair were a heterosexual couple. So anyway, basically yes the age of consent should be the same state by state, I don't know if every state has changed it's laws to reflect that reality, but I doubt any court would allow a prosecution of an age of consent violation for a gay couple where the law provided a different age of consent for straight couples.

[Graeme]

... Or "Yes, we must have the electoral college" because the average citizen is too ill-informed to make a good decision (also true enough at the time, but hopefully no longer the case).

I'm now speaking as an ignorant Australian, but my understanding was that a large part of the reason for the Electoral College was based one communications -- it was essentially impossible at the time for all citizens to know who they would be voting for, so they vote for delegates to represent them, and those delegates would evaluate the candidates and make the choice. In today's highly connected society, that original reason is no longer relevant. That doesn't mean that the Electoral College is not longer relevant, but one of the basic reasons for its creation is not applicable anymore.

 

As for the constitution, I find it amusing that some people think it should be interpreted literally, or based on the original views of the founders. (I've been keeping up on the news of the SCOTUS since I find it an interesting body). After all, the literal wording of the 1st amendment only protects speech -- not recordings and not actions. It is now generally interpreted to include electronic recordings (like TV or internet) and actions (such as protests) but that is not what was written.... Based on that well-known example, interpreting the underlying intent of the constitution is a fair and reasonable activity.

[Jack Frost]

That doesn't mean that the Electoral College is not longer relevant

Well it is to me. I think the president should be elected directly.

 

Having the Electorall College deciding on the choice against the popular vote results is very rare with only cases happening three times in the 19th century (1824, 1876, and 1888) and just once in modern history (2000).

 

The current system is arachic and set up by the elites who think they should take the say choosing the president at that time. It could be changed if we get all of the states to agree to give all of their electors to the one who has won the national popular vote instead of the popular vote in the state. That way the candidates won't ignore the small states and rural areas as they will still have some attention from them. Even with the current system, in the last election 18 states were ignored (no TV ads) and not visited. We can make a law requiring candidates to spend XX time in smaller states and rural areas if we ever abolish the electoral college. Polls have consiently favored in its abolishment since WWII...with a considerable majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in favor.

 

More about it here.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popu...erstate_Compact

 

Of course communication was an issue back that time, but I doubt the 1820s were any better than the 1780s as people were still using horses to travel around and the USA was bigger in the early 19th century than in the last years of the 18th. It wasn't any easier until rail went into fruit in the 1850s.

 

Another reform we could do is letting people living in the territories vote as well. People from the Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. cannot have a say in a presidental election. It's unexcusable to deny a few millions American citizens living there from voting or have any Congressional representatives. We could give them seats in the House since that represents the people as intented originally while keeping the Senate to the states (orginally intented to respresent the states in equal regardless of size or population).

[Tiger]

LOL. Well, thanks to the Lawrence decision, which struck down sodomy laws, age of consent laws should apply equally no matter the gender of the participants. But the supreme court hasn't specifically said this, but it did suggest that was the law in a case involving a Kansas teen who was 18 who had sex with someone who was a week before his 15th birthday and got a harsher sentence than he would have gotten if the pair were a heterosexual couple. So anyway, basically yes the age of consent should be the same state by state, I don't know if every state has changed it's laws to reflect that reality, but I doubt any court would allow a prosecution of an age of consent violation for a gay couple where the law provided a different age of consent for straight couples.

Some states will have difference ages depending on gender. For example, a state might allow an 18-year-old male to have sex with a 16-year-old female. But the same male might be breaking the law if his partner is a 16-year-old male. I think the age should be universal.