Finally, someone's caught up to my original post. Let's take a look at the Constitution: Article 1, Sec. 10 says that states can't:

1. make treaties with foreign governments,

2. grant letters of marque

3. coin money

4. pass bills of atainder or ex post facto laws

5. pass laws impairing the obligations of contracts.

6. law taxes on imports and exports

7. engage in war with Congress's consent.

8. etc.

Damn, where is that part about states not being able to ban prostitution? It's not here. I guess we'll have to look elsewhere.

How about Article IV. Nope, here's it's all about full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, extradition, admitting new states, and guaranteeing republican forms of government. Nothing about banning prostitution. Damn, damn.

Where should we look, where should we look. Nothing in the Bill of Rights applies.

I know, I know! The 14th Amendment:

"No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If we are going to find a state law unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, we have to first ask if there is any fundamental right at issue. Fundamental rights are things like voting, starting and raising a family, and the rights provided by the Bill of Rights to the extent they have been incorporated against the states. Guess what? Prostitution ain't a fundamental right.

If a law does not affect a fundamental right, it will be upheld unless it is not rationally designed to further a legitimate governmental interest. Prohibitions of prostitution are rationally designed to further a legitimate governmental interest, Aych, and you won't find a court in this country that will disagree with that.

So, the constitution doesn't outlaw prostitution bans.

It doesn't really matter though, since you have decided to follow your own strawman. Did you think that invoking the constitution would somehow defeat my argument about democratically enacted laws? Hell, you might as well have argued that I was wrong about 50%+1 because everything in New York legislature has to be enacted by a 3/5 supermajority. I'm almost certain that isn't true, but even if it were, there would still be properly enacted laws that will apply to people who disagree with them.

Welcome to the show.

because he can be charged with a felony because the woman crossed state lines and he really has no other recourse. OK, so be it. I would only say:

1 - I have little sympathy for hypocrisy: taking a holier than thou position as attorney general zealously enforcing a law on one side and personally breaking it on the other sucks.

2 - I have no doubt if he were a Republican the charge would never have been brought and that Clients 1 - 8 will never be named or prosecuted.

3 - We need more people in office who understand the rule of law and how it makes us the nation we can and should be. I'd hope to see more attorney generals who understand the concept starting with the DOJ.

4 - Personally I'd rather he stayed in office eating his self served humble pie and doing the job he's been doing sans the $4k ladies of the night (see 3. above). People do stupid things. This should not be a revelation to anyone. If someone else disagrees and wants him gone and as a group they constitute a majority, then OK, that's the way it works. No complaints. Doesn't change my opinion.

5 - I have no direct experience with the sex trade here in the United States, although I can tell you a few things about the Korean sex trade in the late sixties when I was there as young Army officer. What I read and hear of forcing women into prostitution under threat of violence doesn't make me a happy camper and I'd very much like to see it stopped.

One-thousand dollar an hour prostitutes? I have no idea. I'd guess the story is more complicated than a superficial familiarity would imply. Still, we're dealing with today's reality and today's reality says he resigns. This nation's obsession with sex, well, maybe we can change that one day given time. Some of us worked at it in the sixties, but to little avail.

Strange, because you sound more like a judgmental, hand wringing prude. And the amount of sweaty detail you put into your postings speak to your obsession with the subject. Next you'll be arguing for jail time for women who like spankings, anal sex, being held down having their hair pulled and the like.

How about a little less third-person twaddle and a little more fact? If any woman can come face to face with what she likes and then admit that she wants it, it's not your place to have an opinion about it.

Then I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You've managed to contradict yourself about the effects illegality has on crime associated with a product, dishonestly protray the legalities surrounding alcohol in the 20's and marijuana in the Netherlands today, and then, at best, argued in favor of straight legalization.

Decriminalizing "drugs" will do nothing to stem the violence associate with "drugs". The violence almost always due to disputes over distribution channels.

If product X is illegal, then its "distribution channels" will by neccesity be run by the black market. I.e., criminals. Decriminalizing product X allows it to be run like any other business that doesn't have to supply its own muscle.

Today X is marijuana, prostitution, and gambling and it used to be (in parts of the world still is) alcohol. But it could just as easily be anything else, anything that is in demand, no matter how harmless. Condoms, chocolate, aspirin, tupperware. Whatever it is, make it illegal and you'll find violence in the streets over it, to say nothing of a tremendous drop in quality in the product or the working conditions surrounding it. The phrase "Blind drunk" comes from prohibition days when bootleggers, so desperate to get ahold of alcohol, would use industrial methanol, which has the unfortunate side effect of making you permanently blind, if it doesn't kill you outright.