Amend the Constitution

[Doug H]

Trailscout deserves credit for starting this, not me. It seems that most of the confusion on nudity and the law centers on the fact that there are no laws and those that exist probably have Constitutional issues that haven't been put to the test as yet. Some have said that more rules aren't needed. I disagree. The general absence of rules is the issue, not the complexity of current rules.

He also pointed out that as long as no base law at the Federal level exists, nudists will forever be at the mercy of local legislators, some of which are more concerned about their feeling of moral superiority than individuals' rights.

So for a base law at the Federal level to be applicable to State and Local governments, a Constitutional Amendment would be needed. (And the most secure in the long run. It might be hard to pass, but once passed, it would be even harder to repeal. That's only happenned once in over 200 years!)

For the legal people out there, and I know there are some lawyers amongst us, here is my list of what I would include in that amendment proposal:

1) The government may not regulate nudity within the confines of a private residence or on the premises of a private business.

2) A government agency may not regulate nudity on public land that is under the administrative jurisdiction of a different level of government.

3) Nudity may not be used to differentiate entities in cases regarding zoning.

4) Age may not be used to regulate or otherwise restrict attendence at, participation in, or patronization of businesses and/or events based solely on the presence of nudity.

I'm sure the legal experts can improve on my wording, but I'm sure the intent is clear. A government agency can only regulate nudity in public places under their own jurisdiction. Individuals and business owners are free to regulate nudity as they wish within their property. The child welfare folks, well-meaning as they are, would need more than mere nudity to take action. And a business cannot be zoned out of an area based merely on allowing nudity on their property.

Clears up the grey on several issues, and keeps the "family values" lobby at a distance as well.

Doug H.

[Doug H]

Trailscout deserves credit for starting this, not me. It seems that most of the confusion on nudity and the law centers on the fact that there are no laws and those that exist probably have Constitutional issues that haven't been put to the test as yet. Some have said that more rules aren't needed. I disagree. The general absence of rules is the issue, not the complexity of current rules.

He also pointed out that as long as no base law at the Federal level exists, nudists will forever be at the mercy of local legislators, some of which are more concerned about their feeling of moral superiority than individuals' rights.

So for a base law at the Federal level to be applicable to State and Local governments, a Constitutional Amendment would be needed. (And the most secure in the long run. It might be hard to pass, but once passed, it would be even harder to repeal. That's only happenned once in over 200 years!)

For the legal people out there, and I know there are some lawyers amongst us, here is my list of what I would include in that amendment proposal:

1) The government may not regulate nudity within the confines of a private residence or on the premises of a private business.

2) A government agency may not regulate nudity on public land that is under the administrative jurisdiction of a different level of government.

3) Nudity may not be used to differentiate entities in cases regarding zoning.

4) Age may not be used to regulate or otherwise restrict attendence at, participation in, or patronization of businesses and/or events based solely on the presence of nudity.

I'm sure the legal experts can improve on my wording, but I'm sure the intent is clear. A government agency can only regulate nudity in public places under their own jurisdiction. Individuals and business owners are free to regulate nudity as they wish within their property. The child welfare folks, well-meaning as they are, would need more than mere nudity to take action. And a business cannot be zoned out of an area based merely on allowing nudity on their property.

Clears up the grey on several issues, and keeps the "family values" lobby at a distance as well.

Doug H.

[Prometheus]

Isn't there already some provision in effect that makes federal laws override state laws? Constitutional amendments are insanely hard to pass.

The first thing I think people would object to in your proposal is that it also stops the government from regulating strip clubs. Can you make a distinct separation between simple nudity and erotic entertainment? Your proposal would probably be better off if you could.

[themightysven]

No, Federal laws don't Override Local laws. See The Tenth Amendment. But what the Fed level has recently(since about 1980) done is tie Highway funds to Fed mandates, So that if the State does not follow suit, it loses its road money. Arizona tried to assert itself and has just now fallen into line, thus their roads are in bad repair...

[Doug H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prometheus:
[qb] Isn't there already some provision in effect that makes federal laws override state laws? Constitutional amendments are insanely hard to pass.[/qb]

Not sure. Is there someone who does know this one? There are two things I know of for certain. Laws, ordinances, and regulations at all levels are subject to the US Constitution. The Federal Government can use monetary leverage (Pass the requisite law or we will withhold money you were planning on getting. That's how the drinking age was raised from 19 to 21 about 15 or so years ago.). Also, working through the various executive agencies (EPA, FAA, FCC, ICC, et al.) may be another way of the Feds being able to enforce a Federal requirement on States and localities. I'm not sure if there is a Federal Statute or Supreme Court decision that requires State and Local laws to be "in line" with Federal legislation (as opposed to the simply the Constitution and its Amendments itself)

[qb]The first thing I think people would object to in your proposal is that it also stops the government from regulating strip clubs. Can you make a distinct separation between simple nudity and erotic entertainment? Your proposal would probably be better off if you could. [/qb]

---

That's why I was asking those with genuine legal experience to contribute. As for making a distinct separation of simple, everyday nudity from adult entertainment. That wouldn't be as hard to do if the American public were better educated on the simple fact that there IS a difference.

As for regulating strip clubs and other adult entertainment value, the proposed amendment would simply mean that nudity couldn't be used as a single, meaningful part of the definition. They would have to define behavior instead of costume (or lack of). Or at least that's my interpretation of my wording.

Doug H.

[Bob S.]

I am against adding ammendments to the constitution before all other avenues of chanllenge have been worn out. Think of this, in the past 214 years after the adoption of the constitution, only 17 amandments have been added and one of those was to repeal another. Oh, and I am fully aware that there are 27 amendments, but the first 10 were added before it was adopted.

I take amending the constitution very seriously and am extremely skeptical of anyone who wants to do that.

And Prometheus is right, it is exceedingly hard to pass an amendment, as it should be. It takes 2/3 of Congress to pass it before it goes to the states for ratification. There, 3/4 of the states must pass it, meaning that of the 50 states, 38 must pass it.

Bob S.

[Prometheus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by themightysven:
[qb] No, Federal laws don't Override Local laws. See The Tenth Amendment. But what the Fed level has recently(since about 1980) done is tie Highway funds to Fed mandates, So that if the State does not follow suit, it loses its road money. Arizona tried to assert itself and has just now fallen into line, thus their roads are in bad repair... [/qb]

---

Montana (speed limit) and Colorado (drinking age) have tried to push those limits also, only to be told the fed wouldn't help them with their expressways any more.

But tell me, how did the federal 55 MPH speed limit work? States could not change that.

Maybe I was forgetting something earlier. It works one way but not the other. If the federal government makes something illegal, it is illegal in all the states. But if they don't make it illegal, individual states or communities can make it illegal on their own. That must be the point that Trailscout has been trying to get across. Man, am I slow or what? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif[/img]

[missouriboy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug H:
[qb]...the proposed amendment would simply mean that nudity couldn't be used as a single, meaningful part of the definition. They would have to define behavior instead of costume (or lack of). Or at least that's my interpretation of my wording.

Doug H. [/qb]

---

I guess I'm missing this interpretation somewhere. I was going to suggest the inclusion of wording that positively states that "...no part of the human body may be deemed indecent, lewd, or..." whatever else these arcane local ordinances have come up with. We need to cancel out those silly "...below the areola of the female breast, the buttocks, the..." descriptions we're now stuck with.

[Trailscout]

Prometheus,

First you aren't "slow". This issue is complicated. I am no lawyer, so I don't know the necessary legal action or wording that will achieve our goal, but you and I both have the same goal.

And you did understand me correctly, I support local decision-making as much as possible, but not when it comes to basic American freedoms, and to me that includes our choices about what we wear in public.

We don't want Arkansas to have a law on their books that you can't even whisper a single word in favor of social nudity. How did a state in our union suddenly decide that its citizens no longer have freedom of speech?

Strip clubs create image problems for conservative communities, or simply communities that want to appear more "upscale", so cities and counties try to ban them, but these governments have not been able to craft laws that ban erotic nude dancing without running into freedom of speech lawsuits. So these governments pass all sorts of laws banning nudity and alcohol sales, banning establishments where nudity occurs within so many yards of public schools, all in the name of stopping these clubs which many regard as garish redneck eyesores that embarass moralists and chamber of commerce types in smaller towns and cities. So where does that leave a nudist resort when the county decides to build a new school across the street? If the county has a law that draws a circle of "protection" around each school and retroactively bans nudity on property within that circle, does that mean the nudists must get dressed or vacate the premises?

Perhaps it would take the wisdom of Solomon to legally restrict the location where erotic dancing is allowed, but not impact nudist venues.

If nudists work with local governments, perhaps they could find some legal way to distinguish the two. Perhaps the fact that dancers are paid to be nude and nudists pay for the priviledge of being nude would help distinguish the two. I just don't know. I am sure AANR and NAC lawyers have pondered this stuff deep into the night. Maybe we can persuade FANRlawyer to help us understand the issue better.

I am not so naive to assume that next week we can have a sweeping law that allows us to be nude anywhere at any time. Is an ammendment to the US Constitution the only way to stop each state, city and county from having its own law regarding nudity?

I also think the previous post makes an excellent point about the use of community standards to legally define nudity.Can you imagine the outcry if a city made turbans mandatory for men and it imposed veils on women? I don't know what's to stop them.

Could we begin by considering how we could block a county from imposing its anti-nudity laws on federal land that happens to lie within that county? This is certainly has been a problem on the south end of the Canaveral National Seashore.

[themightysven]

But tell me, how did the federal 55 MPH speed limit work? States could not change that.

The Fed Gov't does have the right to control interstate commerce. (the inter- being key, multiple states have to be involved) So they can regulate the speed (55) and that's how they justify controling the highway funds...