The Circuit Split over Dildos
Eugene Volokh forsees the highest court in the land contemplating the legality of state and local bans on any "device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs."
As Volokh explains, the Fifth and 11th federal appeals court circuits are already in disagreement on the constitutionality of such bans, and he sees it as likely that the losers in an Alabama case that upheld a state ban on selling dildoes last week will seek review from the Supremes.
Here's what Volokh thinks will happen if the Court decides to take up the case (a matter on which he's less certain), and he forsees a sad day for human genitals seeking stimulation everywhere:
The Supreme Court will conclude the statute is constitutional…The vote will be at least 6-3, because even some of the liberals on the Court — especially Justice Breyer — and moderate conservative Justice Kennedy will think that the courts' power to recognize unenumerated rights should be saved for rights (e.g., abortion, contraception, sexual intimacy, parental rights, right to refuse medical treatment, right to live with close family members, and the like) that are more important in most of their exercisers' lives. And this is so even though the government's arguments for the practical benefits of the law seem comparatively weak, or as to the supposed immorality of the conduct, largely conclusory. The majority on the Court will likely conclude that such conclusory moral arguments are adequate except when something more important to most people's lives is at stake (since probably no Justice accepts the libertarian constitutionalist notion that a broadranging liberty to do what one pleases so long as it doesn't directly enough hurt others is itself so important that it should be recognized as a constitutional right).
Volokh's last point, on Supreme Court justices respect for unenumerated rights to just not be bossed around for no goddamn good reason, is true, and sad.
[Hat tip: Mark Bonacquisti]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So what does this mean for sex toy parties and the like?
The Circuit Split over Dildoes
Nah, too easy.
I have it on the authority of whoever captioned the Metalocalypse DVD that it's "dildos."
But I'd totally put a little rubber deer in my ass.
Yeah, that's fixed now. (The dildo plural misspelling.)
this is why SCOTUS needs live video coverage. i really want to watch the oral arguments on this case. call me crazy but the thought of Ruth Bader Ginsburg talking about dildos would be very arousing.
Scalia will ruin it by talking about DVDA.
any "device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs."
Please, not Big Macs!!
I would hope that a frequently self-gratifying Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Time to go long on zucchinis....
My asshole is not a genital organ.
"Time to go long on zucchinis...."
Oh, I have!
I'll tell you what it is! It's a box of big black dildos. You and your sister were supposed to put these out last night.
Also, what about devices designed primarily for the stimulation of nonhuman genital organs?
Can we still get police nightsticks shoved in our orifices? It's brings new meaning to "new professionalism."
any "device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs."
If the SCOTUS allows bans on such devices, how will these organs be stimulated? What other manner is there to accomplish such a thing?
Don't knows snakes from dildos.
Shut up, Hugh! You want them to allow bans on hands and fingers next?
Dammit, Old Bull! Anyway, ...
What other manner is there to accomplish such a thing?
This could be real bad for the Intelligent Design folks.
Don't blame the dildos
Don't knows snakes from dildos.
useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs
Bedknobs and Broomsticks?
Can anyone point out to me what provision in the United States Constitution protects the right to use sex toys?
Just because a law is a bad idea does not make it unconstitutional.
Just because a law is a good idea does not make it constitutional.
Bob | September 15, 2009, 7:34pm | #
I'll tell you what it is! It's a box of big black dildos. You and your sister were supposed to put these out last night.
Love the reference =
Mr Show's "Mom and Pop Porno Shop"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM1GIZSGH4g
"Dont blame the dildos!"
Ejercito:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- Ninth Amendment -
Now, can you tell me what does not fall under there? If you can, we might as well nominate you for SCOTUS right now.
You tell him, TAO.
Or, ask him to show you where in the constitution is there a specific grant of power authorizing Congress to outlaw sex toys.
LM, it's not the federales outlawing sex toys, but the Alabama legislature. It's a ridiculous, laughable law that is all but unenforceable...but it's constitutional.
What TAO said.
It may well be federally constitutional (unless the privileges and immunities clause applies or there is a penumbra or emanation), but to claim it is constitutional at the state level as well would require parsing the 1901 Alabama Constitution. Which is notoriously difficult....given as how it can't be read aloud in 24 hours.
It may well be federally constitutional (unless the privileges and immunities clause applies or there is a penumbra or emanation), but to claim it is constitutional at the state level as well would require parsing the 1901 Alabama Constitution. Which is notoriously difficult....given as how it can't be read aloud in 24 hours.
That's a great point, one I overlooked in my response. There might indeed be a perfectly good challenge to the law under the Alabama Constitution, but federally I can't see a problem with it.
Anyone else find it slightly odd that most devices "designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs" are designed for female genital organs?
I would not agree with the constitutionality of it, either. The case is analogous to Lawrence, though not directly so, because it involves sales (and the Alabama Code does not prohibit the possession, use or giving away of sex toys). However, it laughably hinges on "public morality", and if the SCOTUS were to be consistent like in Lawrence, they would get all flowery like Kennedy and say that sexual toys, you know, significantly contribute to people's happiness, or whatever.
Hazel, at the risk of being slightly crude (would anyone even notice around here), my observation is that guys seem to be universally happy to make do with field expedient methods, but not ever girl is so easily, well, satisfied.
I think guys are just easy.
I'm sorry, I thought you were speaking of original intent. Naturally, in post-constitutional America where the USSC imposes its current preferences and aesthetic at its whim, this law might indeed be found to be unconstitutional. But then again, so might anything else.
In a Bowers v Hardwick world (which was correctly decided, despite it being offensive to libertarians), this law stands. After Lawrence, anything is possible.
In short, I think Ejercito is right.
You can't hope to push the federal Leviathan back into its constitutional box while invoking the Ninth Amendment for every personal preference. A9 made perfect sense prior to incorporation, post-incorporation it's a recipe for legislative anarchy and big-government meddling.
I'm failing to see how that follows. A sufficiently broad interpretation of the 9th amendment and incorporation might lead to just-plain-vanilla anarchy, but to big government?!?
How do you figure?
Certainly the original intent was that the feds would infringe on damn near nothing, and the states would thrash it out under their own constitutions. The 13th amendment messes to some degree with that arrangement, but I don't see how it can legitimately lead to more government meddling.
I'm failing to see how that follows. A sufficiently broad interpretation of the 9th amendment and incorporation might lead to just-plain-vanilla anarchy, but to big government?!?
How do you figure?
A9 is essentially an empty vessel. When the powers of the federal government were "few and defined," it complemented A10 in that A10 reinforced the original intent that the Constitution spelled out specific powers that the federal entity was to have and A9 filled in everything around them with a "No Tresspassing" sign posted. The federal government was strapped down by the Constitution and A9 and A10. Perfect. Beautiful.
But incorporation inverts that arrangement by putting the federal judiciary in charge of filling the empty vessel with, as I pointed out above, its personal preferences. I mean, why no right to a 9 year-old bride, to set up Ponzi schemes, to sell tainted food? Why aren't those rights under A9? Every state legislature has to consult the tea leaves of the federal zeitgeist before passing anything, it would seem.
The big government comes on little cat feet, with Congress getting into the act by declaring any number of things "rights": health care, housing, food, employment, etc. Nothing in the modern interpretation of A9 requires the unenumerated rights to be negative. Hence, a document crafted to restrain the State is used, jujistu-like, to increase its power beyond all measure.
This is an interesting approach.
'K. I see where you're coming from, and it is certainly in keeping with the way politicians want to interpret things these days, but...
I would argue that a proper reading of the 9th plus 13th would lead to a list (developed, if you will, at the whim of the courts) of things about which neither the feds nor the states could legislate. Not a list of things about which the feds may and the states may not.
Which certainly isn't the way any politician would want to read it, and if taken beyond all reason (drink?), would lead to something resembling anarchy.
My position would be built on two basic planks:
1) the 9th allows that some rights while not enumerated are none the less reserved to the people (and privacy is properly one of these, it went un-enumerated because it was simply a feature of life at the time with the 4th and 5th amendments covering the exceptions).
2) That these (or some of them) constitute immunities or privileges under the meaning of the 13th.
The limit here is the 10th amendment's allowance that some of the un-enumerated powers might belong to the states (rather than being rights of the people), and the tension is that the 13th holds the privileges and immunities of the people to supersede those. Lots of room for argument there.
I contend there are unemumerated rights to do EVERYTHING - to commit murder, to enslave people, to use drugs, to steal, etc. Only where otherwise contradicted (i.e. with slavery) or where there is an extremely compelling reason (murder, theft) can those rights be restricted by the state. Everything else - dildos, prostitution, gay sex, smoking, drugs, public nudity, etc should be presumed to be a right belonging to the people. And any restrictions of those rights should be presumptively unconstitutional (not the other way around).
So...judges may decide this on the basis that dildoes aren't as important to women as real penises are to gays?
I would argue that a proper reading of the 9th plus 13th would lead to a list (developed, if you will, at the whim of the courts) of things about which neither the feds nor the states could legislate. Not a list of things about which the feds may and the states may not.
I think you mean the 14th Amendment, unless you're trying to make the case that paying for all of this is involuntary servitude. I find myself in general agreement, but I don't think a court will swallow it.
Myself, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that judges, by fiat, will be determining what are and are not our rights, especially when the notion of a "right" has mutated into the idea that one can claim the product of another's labor as such. And no end of chaos has been created by the courts' declaration of "privacy" to be one, as well. We might all agree on the idea of such a right, but we all have different ideas of what privacy is. That's a question for legislatures, not courts.
Me, I'd be happier to see Leviathan hacked back down into its proper, Constitutional size and let the states hash out the details. I'm willing to participate in the democratic process. I find it far preferable to being dictated to.
Alabama - the state you can't even fuck yourself in.
Since the people of that state, through their elected representatives banned the devices, they evidently do not retain the right to those devices.
I contend there are unemumerated rights to do EVERYTHING - to commit murder, to enslave people, to use drugs, to steal, etc. Only where otherwise contradicted (i.e. with slavery) or where there is an extremely compelling reason (murder, theft) can those rights be restricted by the state. Everything else - dildos, prostitution, gay sex, smoking, drugs, public nudity, etc should be presumed to be a right belonging to the people. And any restrictions of those rights should be presumptively unconstitutional (not the other way around).
That's a moral philosophy, not a legal/constitutional one. And at any rate, do you prefer that an unelected passel of judges define the boundaries you agree are there, or do you, like me, a bit more access to those doing the defining?
What's next? Are they going to try to ban rectal examinations?
::blushes::hides head in shame::turns in decoder ring for a probationary period::
Yeah. It was a typo. No really.
So...judges may decide this on the basis that dildoes aren't as important to women as real penises are to gays?
I suspect the fear of sex toys is essentially similar to the Taliban fear of women buying cucumbers.
Yeah. It was a typo. No really.
Meh...we all do it.
I suppose the question is whether one believes there to be an inconsistency between A9 and A10. There isn't, as the Founder knew, but we've created one.
Aaaaand we are back to the tautology that rights are defined by the state, not really making them "rights" at all.
I am relatively sympathetic to Jeffersonian's take on the Constitution, except it should be noted that it's the South (again) that fucked up it for the rest of us. What would be done about Jim Crow under this read of the Constitution?
human genitals seeking stimulation everywhere
How they get everywhere I'll never know.
How they get everywhere I'll never know.
One morning while on safari I shot an elephant in my pajamas....
The real question is why they want to ban them in the first place. Why are people so concerned with what their neighbors are doing? Don't they have enough happening in their own lives? We'd all be a lot better off if we minded our own business.
jeffersonian: it's just another "balancing test" i'm proposing, one of many already used by courts to determine when a right is actually a right, or when a right can be violated. Libel and solicitation of crimes are not "valuable" speech so they are not protected by the first amendment.
I'd rather have unelected judges decide these issues than elected politicians. The notion that politicians who are elected are more accountable than judges given lifetime tenure (subject only to impeachment) is easily proven false simply by looking at the level of corruption and unaccountability in Congress versus the courts. Elected judges are just as bad, but people not having to cater to the whims of the stupid every few years are much more capable public servants. Either give people life tenure or give them one term. Elections, while a good way to put someone in office initially, are a bad way to keep them there.
decide these issues
Why are people so concerned with what their neighbors are doing? Don't they have enough happening in their own lives?
Well the answer to #2 is no, hence the laws.
I'd rather have unelected judges decide these issues than elected politicians.
And this is different from tyranny...how?
More simply put, why don't you prefer to have rights codified into law rather than have them decreed one day by Judge Jones and then undecreed another by Judge Smith?
Brian,
Nice to see you know more about dildos than the
military.
Any rights that were commonly recognized in America at the time of the ratification of the Ninth Amendment.
What disturbs me so is that many of the same people with an expansive view of the Ninth Amendment are willing to reinterpret the Second Amendment in such a way that only the government has the right to keep and bear arms.
You've got it entirely backward. The proper question is, "Can anyone point out to me what provision in the United States Constitution permits the government to ban sex toys?"
It has a lot to do with reasonable expectations of privacy.
If people choose to walk down a public street naked, they have no credibility to complain about any government agents photographing them and distributing the photos.
For the government to implant secret listening devices outside one's home is most likely a violation of the right to privacy. If people in a home speak loud enough that outsiders can hear what they say, they have no credibility complaining about the government tape recording what outsiders could plainly hear.
I'd rather have unelected judges decide these issues than elected politicians.
I think the RAICH and KELO decisions, just to name a couple for recent memory, go to show that unelected can be just as incompetent and or corrupt and/or intellectually vapid as any elected official. All life time tenure does is allow a dogmatic cocksucker like Scalia but to live out a full life trying to fuck the constitution to the way he thinks it out to be.
:::shakes fist at Deep South:::
Can TAO, or some other legal mind please enlighten me as to precisely what powers are granted or prohibited by the Ninth Amendment, and to whom? Try as I might, I just can't see it.
If the government in question is a state, then that would appear to be covered by the Tenth Amendment. If it's the federal government, then the answer is likely either "there isn't one" or "the Commerce Clause" depending on ones proclivities.
More simply put, why don't you prefer to have rights codified into law rather than have them decreed one day by Judge Jones and then undecreed another by Judge Smith?
Well I would, and in a sense that's what I'm proposing. There's no way to list all of them, there are billions of things I'd consider "rights"... so I start by saying EVERYTHING is a right, any infringement on that right is presumptively unlawful, and only when there is an extremely important reason necessary to the functioning of society, may that right be limited or otherwise abrogated. For example, I think we can all collectively agree to have limits on our right to commit murder (but we want to preserve some of it, like the right to self defense, etc.).
Also, what about devices designed primarily for the stimulation of nonhuman genital organs?
STEVE SMITH NEED PROSTATE STIMULATION GRR!
I've been expecting this case to rise up for some time (I live in Alabama).
I really really want to be a fly on the wall so I can watch Ruth Bader Ginsburg's face while the lawyers talk about dildos and vibrators!
Future blurb from the supreme court case: "Clarence Thomas was dogged in his thoroughness in this case. He spent at least twelve hours a day for weeks in the archives studying video of the devices in question being put to practical use."
The 9th Amendment's purpose is to disallow the revocation of a right if the grounds are only that the right isn't enumerated. There can be other grounds for banning an unenumerated right.
Dildos and vibrators, toys or tools ? Let me check with my wife.
Tony, that's the stupidest thing you've said yet. Shut the fuck up.
The stupidest? Come on, I've been way more drunk and stoned than I was when I posted that. And it happens to be true.
George Washington had a massive artificial-cock collection that can be seen today at the Smithsonian National Sex Toys Museum.
Part of the problem is the myth that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply only to the feds.