Topic: [US Only] Legalization of the sex trade? (Read 274 times)

Definitions is the reason for most people to go the common law route. Legalease has all kinds of Latin in it. And if the person starts using Latin, the judge just might start speaking in Latin.

Missed the point again, it does not use the word "may", it does not even define "others", thats the whole point.  All its saying is that its a disclaimer, in other words, we've defined these, but just because we defined these doesnt mean these are the only ones you have. 

The few Traffic related offenses which are considered criminal, are called criminal offenses and are handled by the courts as criminal offenses, not traffic offenses. 

Thats why I used the words I did.

Definitions mean a lot in legal speak. 

Where doe 9-A say you may have more rights? It say you have "others" that can't be denied because of the fact that you have some from the Constitution. Look at it.

I also mentioned 7-A which is civil. Are you going to deny that some of the traffic violations wind up becoming criminal, and some of them remain civil?

You seem to be reading only half of what I post.

You keep quoting the 9th A everywhere.  All it really says is:  you may have more rights than we defined here. Just because we defined these, doesnt mean you dont have more that we didnt list.

You quoted this 6th A regarding jury trial.  Look closer.... at the important words "CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS". 

What if a traffic violation wasn't considered a "CRIMINAL" prosecution ?  There's your answer.

Your State Constitution, right in the first few lines, upholds the US. Constitution. In addition, if you have a proper Oath of Office on file, you promised in your OoO that you will uphold the US Constitution, as well. In the case of Louisiana that doesn't uphold the US Constitution, or any State that makes an amendment to their State constitution to remove the upholding of the US Constitution from their constitution... the Organic Acts of all States require that the States uphold the US Constitution to even be a State. (The Organic Act is the Act of the US Congress that authorizes a territory to become a State.)

This means that a person can always require a jury trial. The only way a person can be denied a jury trial is if he agrees to such. However, if he rescinds his signature off the agreement, he can still have a jury trial. The funny thing is that the jury trial isn't automatic. The accused must demand it.

Why would I want to read the US Constitution? Most of it has to do with the way they organize their operations in D.C.

The US Constitution absolutely is NOT the final law of the land. The US Constitution says so, itself, right in the parts that allow private contracting, and in the 9th Amendment:
The jury trial existed before the Constitution. You can't lawfully deny the right to a jury trial to anyone who demands it. You really need to go back to LEO school. You really need to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOBKiHUbuw?t=9m0s to see what life and law are about. Go to 9 minutes in the video to see an important part.

No I think this is wrong in so many ways 
Woman and children are not objects to be traded 

I think I see the issue here.  You got your law degree from Google, and believe the US Constitution is the only applicable law.

How does your state apply the wording of "criminal prosecutions" stated in the US Constitution to a traffic violation?

I cant speak for the other 49 states, but there's one that I'm quite familiar with.  In my state, Title 234 is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and outlines how prosecutions and investigation are to be handled depending on the grading of the offense. Is a Summary traffic offense handled in the courts the same as a Felony Assault?  Nope.  
     At the Summary level, the local District Judge is the "finder of fact" and makes the ruling. The citing officer acts as prosecutor. The defendant can appeal the ruling to the State Court, but in that appeal, the Commonwealth Judge is the ultimate finder of fact.
   Misdemeanor and Felony graded offenses operate quite differently.

I get that you read the US Constitution.  I might also suggest you spend some time researching how the US Constitution integrates to individual state laws.

If the US Constitution was the only final law of the land, then please explain how you can legally buy and own an AR15 with standard capacity (30rd) mags. Put them in your car in Pennsylvania and youre cool, but as soon as you cross to New Jersey its a felony.

However, even if Jung's position was stronger, it's not simply cut and dried. A debate like this can be won or lost based on who was taking brain drugs that day, or who was tired from working late last night.

Freud's observations can't be simply thrown out the window because someone introduced other points, even if his points are not the best idea.

All right. We are missing something in our correspondence here.

If you mean one of the 50 States in the USA or one of the US Territories, and you are not using some kind of play on words to mean something other than what the standard understanding of your words means, you are wrong.

Consider the 6th and 7th Amendments. Amendment 6:
Amendment 7:
How much plainer can foundational law be? And this doesn't include all kinds of other things that can be done without relying on a jury.

Are you really talking without some kind of trick to it, or some kind of play on words? You know this stuff. If you are in the USA, you are supposed to take the Oath of Office that states that you will uphold the Constitution. And the Amendments are part of the Constitution.

Are you in some other country, other than the USA. Because if you are LEO in the USA, without an Oath of Office, you are placing yourself in danger from anyone who challenges your right to be an LEO.

This is why Carl Jung had to come and: "de-emphasized the importance of sexual development and focused on the collective unconscious".

In fact, they had quite the heated debate and ended breaking relations... But still, Carl was right, and Freud just didn't like his theories getting broken...

Sorry, I missed the Esq. after your name.

But I will guarantee that you cannot get a jury trial for a traffic offense in my state.

Of course you might say something like this. You are trained as a code enforcement officer. If they wanted common-law-of-man officers, your training would be a whole lot different. It's your training that is keeping you ignorant of the rest of the law... especially common law, which is the basic law.

This is wrong.  Very very wrong.  As Ive seen in other posts of yours, you lack practical legal knowledge, yet perpetuate legal inaccuracies repeatedly. 

Sigmund Freud would disagree with you about sex not being the main reason behind marriage. In fact, Freud would tell you that sex is essentially the reason you do everything in life that you do.

But regarding sex in marriage, the sexual bond in marriage (even if there aren't any other bonds holding it together) is designed to maintain the marriage for stability for the children long enough to get them to maturity. This doesn't always work, of course. Who Set it up like this? God did. But we continually mess up the good stuff God provided.

I don't think sex is the main reason behind a marriage because it's only a temporary stuff and all, there lies a true love between the couples in a marriage and if it lacks, it's just gonna break the marriage in no time. Because stuffs like property sharing, offsprings and unconditional love for ones on child, these feelings can only originate if there exists a true love or bonding which is more than the lust for sex. And sex is already legal, isn't it, if you are an adult, you can have it with any consensual adult

Sex is just a bonus. If you look like you are the one doing all the cooking and laundry for yourself, you'd look miserable. But having someone to do it for you is a lot better. 
Having kids that will look after you and visit you from time to time in the retirement home will be something to look forward to when you decide to marry someone. Watching kids becoming like you feels good.

Most people think that a good retirement income will do this. But they are wrong. For example, hospice costs these days are like $5,000 a month, basic. This drains the retirement income right out of average Americans. Government takes over, but it is draining the resources of government, as well. It's going to collapse the whole money system if it continues going on like this.

So, you are right. People will need family to support them in old age. But many (most?) people don't have it set up this way. Not in the USA, that is.

Sex is part of marriage but there is a lot to it,you might need children ,to take good care of you when you are ageing ,your wife or kids to inherit your properties when you are no more and some other vital issues

The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow jury trial for almost anything. The 9th Amendment essentially says that the people have all the rights not granted to them by the Constitution.

The jury has the duty of deciding anything in the case, including the legality of any law. The jury is common law, because it was around before the Constitution, and is simply guaranteed by the amendments. The jury can be local or nationwide. The jury cannot be coerced by a judge/magistrate.

These amendments give the bottom-line control to the jury and the local jury. There is no governing body that has any more legal or lawful strength than the jury... if it is used correctly.

Friend, maybe I'm wrong. Of course, I am not familiar with the legislative system of the United States of America, but it seems to me that, first of all, the main law is the Constitution and other laws must be in agreement with this document.  If a citizen believes that his rights are violated, then of course, with the help of the court, he can appeal any decision of the congress.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Law and legislative acts are two different documents that have different degrees of importance.

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

I agree with legalization of prostitution more because of concern from the public health risk of an unregulated industry. People will dip and and get dipped when they want to and they can bring diseases back into the family. Having it legalized and regulated meant more frequent testing.

Of course that don't automatically erase the risk, for example testing is already a requirement in the porn industry but there are still some companies that have sloppy compliance but it does reduce the risk.

Oh, and also it removes money from syndicates that are operating prostitution ring.


The asset sharing is definitely a big benefit, especially if the spouse's family is hostile to the relationship. Else the remaining spouse could be left with nothing. I'm not fond of it with divorces though.

Almost nothing can be banned by government if it is set up to be done privately. Government is there to regulate the public, not the private. In private, government might still have some control over things that are dangerous. But government has to be ready to prove the danger in court if they attempt to regulate what you do in private. Sex laws are currently set up so that consenting adults can do just about any sexual thing in private.

We have had gentleman's clubs for ages. Since they are private, there is a lot that goes on within them that would not be allowed in public.

Possibly the best way to set up a private club these days is with Private Membership Associations (PMA). Net search and Youtube search on "Private Membership Association." If you set one up, the attorneys who do your legal paperwork will be ready to help you if government tries to take away your freedom when you are doing things in private.

All of that being said, prostitution, public or private, wrecks the lives of people and society. Rather, get married (via a simple PMA if you want, rather than a public marriage license), and keep sex between one man and one woman, in the family.

For you, put everything that you own in trust. Place the conditions of your bodies (you and she) into trust with the right to be the first authorization for each other in case of accidents. Be co-trustees if you want. Or have two trusts if you want your property to remain separate. List all your property in the trust, and state who gets what if you die or she dies, or if it all should remain in trust for the other one, or for the successor trustee. Appoint a successor trustee with distinct, detailed instructions for the successor, should you both die.

You can write it up almost any way you like. There are even ways to overcome just about any State rules that might be against something you want in your private trust.

See https://apeacefulsolution.wordpress.com/ and http://www.theultimateinassetprotection.com/?ref=SWC.

Less laws is always good..

Prostitution, Weed, Gambling.etc can never be banned. They have been around for thousands of years (or probably since the beginning of humanity). Semitic religions such as Christianity and Islam imposed a moral code on us, which is not very compatible with the basic human character. This is one of the reasons why we hear about so many sex abuse scandals from the Islamic and Christian clerics. I am not saying that Buddhist and Hindu clerics are immune, but the incidence is very low.

And the problem with banning prostitution is that, since sex is one of the basic human necessities, the demand will always persist. And this will result in the business going underground, where there is more scope for exploitation and forced sex trafficking. Legalization can eradicate this issue.

For many people marriage is not about legal sex but about making life easier. In case of an accident I wouldn't be able to know my girlfriend's condition, I wouldn't be treated like family and might be even denied entry to her hospital room. If one of us died, parents and siblings would inherit everything, even though we've worked for it together.
It's just convenient to be married when you're living together and sharing investments and expenses.

Since sex is already lawful between people who voluntarily marry each other, the only reason for government to make it legal is to make money off it by selling licenses, and by regulation the children that are products of marriage.

Some groups have even legalized polygamy. Since we have legal same-sex marriage, a little more pushing, and we will get wives with more than one husband, and formal communal marriage. So far some of this stuff is only legal on the private level. But liberals are pushing it to be legal publicly.

I mean, marriage is all about legal sex, isn't it? Sure, there are other reasons, but sex is the main one, isn't it?