We have previously discussed efforts of politicians to add costs or otherwise harass owners and customers of strip joints for moral, social, or political reasons. Both feminists and religious right advocates have targeted the businesses. The latest such effort is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania state Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, who admits that he has introduced a new draconian measure to respond to faith-based groups. His bill would force strippers to register with the state, ban alcohol in strip joints and create a buffer zone between dancers and patrons (effectively barring “lap dances.”).
The bill is being justified as a way “to help combat sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation of women.” However, sex trafficking and sexual abuse are crimes that are already prosecuted under other laws. There is a question nexus between these prohibitions and those crimes. The law seems transparently designed to harass this business out of moral opposition from faith-based groups. As such it raises some difficult constitutional questions in the singling out of this industry. The law also raises serious privacy issues for this industry in forcing such registration — a requirement that is not imposed on the vast array of other businesses. Indeed, this is an area where adults want and expect that greatest level of privacy in exercising their individual lifestyle choices. Both dancers and customers are adults who are making lawful and consensual choices.
Under the proposed law, adult-orientated clubs would pay $300 to register with the state and would have to list business partners, as well as corporate officers and directors. It would also force disclosure of anybody with “an influential interest” in the establishment previously convicted of a crime.
Baker previously attracted national attention by using his Chairmanship of a key committee to block a bill that would legalize medical marijuana. His latest effort to impose restrictions on those working or going to strip joints has been pulled back for “more work.” The poorly written and ill-conceived law however is expected to be reintroduced.
From Lincoln’s theocratic “Reign of Terror” to the insurrection of the SCOTUS in King v. Burwell,
America did not stand for the essential context of the Preamble,
Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence, Promote General Welfare as the strict limits on government
and “…the blessings of liberty to ourselves…”
And it has fallen for everything – lock, stock and barrel.
Ari, I have wondered if Obama’s bag men don’t have some compromising photos of Roberts. That’s the Chicago way.
Does it even matter anymore?
You tell me.
Meantime I’ll still sit and spit on SCOTUS for their hubris and arrogance.
Honorable Darren Smith,
Here is some relevant text:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Article II, Section 4
“I WOULD NOT LOOK TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, IF I WERE DRAFTING A CONSTITUTION IN THE YEAR 2012.”
RUTH BADER GINSBURG – CAIRO, EGYPT
***********************************
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
— Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
***********************************
“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.”
— Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008
Just to be v-e-r-y clear….I do not care what a given phrase says, except when meat heads in SCOTUS decides that up is down, left is right, and the devil take the hindmost. The phrase was clear simple English…so who are these arrogant Judges to re-write simple English? Send it back for clarification, but let the people’s Congress decide…not determine that up is down autocratically. I have no use, none, ever again for the SCOTUS ever again…they are whores of the first order. In fact I respect a whore more than I do these meat heads. Whores at least produce what is asked. Roberts is a simple wimpy pussy who ought to be sent home…can’t do that, so ignore him. We are all doomed to suckitude either way.
Enjoy your new Post-Constitutional Republic.
Jonathan Gruber will get a few glasses of wine in him and then talk about the “stupidity” of SCOTUS. He’ll do a sweep for cell phones first. When the premium increases kick in and then the much delayed employer mandate, the climate will be right to repeal this monstrosity and write a new, leaner, BETTER, plan. I think many Republican guvs were sweating a 5-4 decision the other way. Then they would have been in a trick bag. No time to scream and whine like liberals do, just time to get to work on repealing this Frankenstein law after the 2016 elections.
jim22
I don’t either. But we live with what we live with. The law isn’t a “science.” It is pretty much a series of judgement calls. And OPINION. Which is one reason why Republicans and conservatives in general always seem to be behind the 8 ball, and on the defensive. Because sometimes the battles are not really over the “rules”, but emotions and whoever has the best PR.
Which is why I always say,
With this ruling, SCOTUS really just opted for a point on the continuum within the limits of their discretion, and then explained it very poorly. I don’t like the law, and think it is a sign of national mental illness and unrestrained greed, but the interpretation is the least of the problems with it. Just wait until people have to start writing the checks that come with this crap law. In the meantime, we deserve the laws we get. The majority of the country voted for Obama twice, so screw ’em. If those of us on the other side haven’t done a good enough job of persuasion, we deserve to suffer right along side those idiots.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here is the text of the bill
It will never pass. Too many politicians like lap dances and nekkid girls. (you can’t say “n a k e d” or the filter grabs the comment!) Try it! Anyway, here is an Irish Poem:
Finger Food???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once were some girls who got nude,
In a joint that served liquor and food!
Some guy wanted two breasts- – –
And for his request,
He got slapped on the face and called “Rude!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
These women really enjoy swinging around the pole, with those clear heels blazin’…waxed, tanned, and glistening…the dudes love the lap-dances…in so cal they have a place called “tropical lei”, which is basically a bordello, where women harass guys for lap dances and “vip” dances, many of these hussies, will hiss poison in your ear…as they seek to debauch the innocent for a “c-note”…place is on the radar for law enforcement…stay out of these strip clubs, they are den’s of iniquity…
Squeek,
Sorry, but I don’t get a warm fuzzy when the SCOTUS doesn’t do their job. And, why should I feel better that they went political and maybe helped the Republicans who are no better then the Dems?
IMO, the Republicans just dodged a bullet, because if the subsidies went bye-bye, the hurt would have fallen predominantly on their states. So if Roberts was being political, then he did the GOP a favor. Plus, don’t the mandates kick in for everybody in 2016??? We ain’t seen nothing yet with Obamacare as when it screws up the majority of voters in the country. It takes something personal to get fat, lazy,stupid Americans off the couch.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
…and Nixon was impeached.
forgotwhoiam – Nixon was never impeached, unlike Clinton. The committee voted to impeach but the vote never came to the floor.
Professor Turley,
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke
If this is not post facto of the “constitutional tipping point,” there will never be one.
Aridog 12:24,
HEAR, HEAR!
Aridog,
I agree with you. But what really disturbs me is that the Libtards will celebrate this. Regardless of your position on Obamacare, you know this decision was wrong.
Justice Roberts wrote: “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
Now why would that be, other than his personal bias? Nothing compelled his re-writing except hubris and interpretation of words simply not there. Just what exactly compelled ignoring the “most natural reading of the pertinent phrase” … imaginary phrasing? He’s outright decided for Congress what Congress meant…without the accountability. With an ounce of sense he (they) should have sent the bill back to the Congress and let Congress re-phrase it. Bah, too much bother when you can just be an ignorant fool. SPIT!
In short, we’re screwed…and I am glad I am old so I won’t see future judicial rewrites of legislation ignoring common parlance. Kiss the Congress goodbye…and given the recent nonsense, why not the Judiciary too…then we can have the dictatorship we all want, right?