Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ted Cruz defended Texas ban on the sale of sex toys in state

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ted Cruz defended Texas ban on the sale of sex toys in state

    AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Defending a Texas state law banning the sale of sex toys, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz argued in a 2007 court brief that individuals have no legal right to use them, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

    Prior to becoming a U.S. senator, Cruz was for more than five years Texas' solicitor general, arguing the state's legal positions in court. He often cites that experience to burnish his credentials as a Christian conservative.

    On the campaign trail, Cruz frequently reminds audiences that he used the job to defend capital punishment and oppose abortion, while preserving the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and defending a monument to the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol grounds.

    But Cruz makes no mention of a decade-old case he lost — his defense of Texas' sex-toy ban. The story was first reported by Mother Jones magazine.

    The law, approved in the 1970s, banned as obscene any device "useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." The same law also declared that anyone possessing six or more such items was presumed to be promoting sex-toy usage through manufacture, sale, lending, delivery or other means.
    AP - Full Article

    Texans have a deep psychological issue with sex toys that hasn't diminished.

  • #2
    Maybe it was personal...his wife told him that she didn't need him anymore...
    Also, as he proves, there's a big difference between having one and being one.

    Comment


    • #3
      He was the State Solicitor General. It was his job to defend Texas laws in Federal courts.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Must be getting desperate for posts, because I can't imagine this matters in any way at all to the nation as a whole, or any other way for that matter.

        America has far more serious and pressing issues than whether or not Texans can buy sex toys.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          He was the State Solicitor General. It was his job to defend Texas laws in Federal courts.
          Not the point. He is under NO obligation and he would be violating his duties if he used arguments in his legal briefs etc that he did NOT believe were constitutional etc.

          The real point of interest is that Sen Cruz believes that States have the power to regulate this area. Gives us an idea on his beliefs of the power of the State.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #6
            Howdy, Tex!

            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              Not the point. He is under NO obligation and he would be violating his duties if he used arguments in his legal briefs etc that he did NOT believe were constitutional etc.

              The real point of interest is that Sen Cruz believes that States have the power to regulate this area. Gives us an idea on his beliefs of the power of the State.


              A lawyer need not personally agree with the issue he is arguing, he is only subject to the requirement that the argument be made in "good faith".
              That it is a plausible or reasonable interpretation of the law.
              Lawyers who defend rapists aren't required to believe the client is telling the truth, just that the arguments presented on his behalf must be made in "good faith".
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                A lawyer need not personally agree with the issue he is arguing, he is only subject to the requirement that the argument be made in "good faith".
                That it is a plausible or reasonable interpretation of the law.
                Lawyers who defend rapists aren't required to believe the client is telling the truth, just that the arguments presented on his behalf must be made in "good faith".
                I totally agree. However are they allowed to state legal reasons to support the law in briefs that they believe are not supported by the Constitution? THAT is my point. The briefs he filed represent his thoughts on the power of the State. Does not mean he thinks it is a good law, nor that he would pass such a law. However the brief does put forth his idea that the State DOES have such power.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  Not the point. He is under NO obligation and he would be violating his duties if he used arguments in his legal briefs etc that he did NOT believe were constitutional etc.

                  The real point of interest is that Sen Cruz believes that States have the power to regulate this area. Gives us an idea on his beliefs of the power of the State.
                  Unless the Constitution prohibits the States from regulating something, the States have the power to regulate it.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    I totally agree. However are they allowed to state legal reasons to support the law in briefs that they believe are not supported by the Constitution? THAT is my point. The briefs he filed represent his thoughts on the power of the State. Does not mean he thinks it is a good law, nor that he would pass such a law. However the brief does put forth his idea that the State DOES have such power.
                    Google "Tenth Amendment. "
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My worst jump story:
                      My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                      As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                      No lie.

                      ~
                      "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                      -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          Unless the Constitution prohibits the States from regulating something, the States have the power to regulate it.
                          Until they violate a provision of the constitution, which this did.
                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ah... It's just the cattle and sheep industry don't want competition... It is Texas after all...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              Until they violate a provision of the constitution, which this did.
                              Nothing in the 14th Amendment rendered this law unconstitutional until 30 years after SCOTUS perverted the intent of the amendment.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X