What is the whole purpose of the sex toy ban? Anybody who wants one can go to a state, that does not ban sex toys, and buy it there. Or simply go online and order whatever they want.

Yes I agree going to another state would be a viable option, but according to the wording that I see in this law, wouldn't that also affect sales via the internet? If sales are not allowed in Alabama that would directly affect Internet sales as well. Considering this blows away the theory that is is based one a store front.

What is the whole purpose of the sex toy ban? Anybody who wants one can go to a state, that does not ban sex toys, and buy it there. Or simply go online and order whatever they want.

I am just fascinated how, in general, all the strict constructionists never seem to bother about the plain words and meaning of that “inkblot”.

Well, that's because the 9th Amendment is applicable only to the Federal Government, as it has not been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Because these cases are almost invariably state cases and because the states are thought to retain the general police power, the question is flipped when it comes to seeing whether what they do is constitutional: is there anything in the constitution or its amendments that prohibits the states from doing X.

I'm not arguing that JohnG is wrong about that. I am just fascinated how, in general, all the strict constructionists never seem to bother about the plain words and meaning of that "inkblot".

The Constitution does not confer rights. It grants certain powers to the Government. The Bill of Rights is just an added protection for certain basic rights - and the whole point of the ninth amendment is to drive home the point that, having a Bill of Rights, is not meant to imply that rights are limited to only those enumerated. Having rights is the default position - grounded in the notion of free people - to be trumped by government power only when there is an explicit grant of power to the government.

It is an ongoing mystery how so many conservatives speak so eloquently, at times, in defense of freedom, and yet inevitably interpret the basic principles of the Constitution in an authoritarian manner - such that we the people are not to have any rights unless they are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's just say that it's true either way.

As with Ugh, I find the "they're legal, you just can't buy or sell them" bit to be absurd. Try that with Bibles and see where it gets ya.

As with the "public morality" shtick, which is in fact a "we don't have to have a reason" argument, which by definition does not meet the rational basis test. What is "immoral" about a married couple using a vibrator to enhance orgasm? Can anyone explain that one?

(I keep waiting for the equal-protection argument to make an appearance, since the great majority of sex toys actually sold appear to be for women's use.)

I would argue that the Ninth Amendment qualifies.

I don't think so, no.

They're not doing that; they're preventing local sales. Presumably, they're concerned about window displays, the type of people who might be attracted to the area, and that sort of thing.

I don’t see a similar right to make a living selling newspapers, condoms, or performing abortions.

Well, I'd say the 1st Amendment confers a right to sell newspapers. Roe essentially created on for abortions, saying that there was no compelling public interest in preventing them in the first two trimesters. I'm not sure if there's any jurisprudence on condoms other than Griswold and Eisenstadt.