Kink Friendly Law

Posts Tagged ‘Legislation’

When taking about Supreme Court Justices who should receive praise for socially progressive statements or decisions, Antonin Scalia is not the first name that come to mind. Read the rest of this entry »

Does Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) really hate poor people? Or is he just a mean spited old curmudgeon? Bunning is unwilling to extend unemployment and COBRA benefits to unemployed workers. Apparently he hates poor people but loves banks. Since he didn’t oppose the federal bailout. Read the rest of this entry »

Virginia State delegate Bob Marshall is heading a personal crusade to change the time honored slogan the Department of Tourism came up with years ago, “Virginia is for Lovers” to the more appropriate ”Virginia is for Haters”. Or at least in Bob Marshall’s twisted little world. Marshall claims that children born with disabilities are  God’s curse on the mother for having an abortion. Read the rest of this entry »

Antiquated laws are a part of the American political and legal landscape. And for the most part are laughable to the point of absurdity. However in California one antiquated law in particular is no laughing matter.  Unbelievably in this day and age, California still has a law on the books mandating State funded research into finding a cure for homosexuality! Read the rest of this entry »

Recently, NPR ran a story on-line that R.J. Reynolds is challenging the Constitutionality of specific provisions of the new anti-smoking legislation on First Amendment grounds relating to advertising.

As a practicing attorney I find it disheartening that democratic lawmakers wrote a provision into this new legislation that is potentially open to attack on a Constitutional level, especially in light of a strong precedent seeming to favor the tobacco companies position (See Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly).

I understand the government has an strong social interest in keeping children from being exposed to tobacco advertising geared towards enticing them to try tobacco products, I further understand the governments interest in vigorously sharing the risks of tobacco use and doing what it can to encourage individuals to either stop using tobacco products or to never begin. But in the case I believe this is a classic case of “big government” overstepping and forging ahead with legislation which stands a very good chance having certain provisions eviscerated as being overly broad in a Constitutional sense. This simply wastes time and money when far more complex and far reaching problems need to be addressed.

I would prefer to see the government spend my tax dollars smarter by trying to address the myriad of problems currently facing our county. But then those problems will require hard work and compromise possibly requiring a great deal of both personal and governmental sacrifice which will likely be met with resistance and anger. Which makes a soft target like “evil tobacco” irresistible to a government desperate for a legislative win.