 Welcome to Censored 125 and part 4 of How to Defeat a Conservative by William J. Eisenman, PhD. The simple fact that most conservatives refuse to confront is that it is parents who corrupt their children, non-loving parents, not dirty books and videos, turn some children into criminals and perverts. Parents in society have always sought scapegoats other than themselves to blame for badly raised children. Traditionally, companions, drugs, alcohol, and pornography have been blamed for leading kids astray. Today, many conservative parents blame television, liberal teachers, schools, the internet, anyone but themselves. History shows us that pornography has almost always been a scapegoat for the ills of society and individuals. In colonial times, pornography was thought of as heresy, religious heresy. Today, many conservatives feel that pornography is social heresy. To put down pornography, many people claim it lacks social redeeming value. Television, radio, and the internet once lacked social redeeming value. To say something has social redeeming value is to look into the future, and none of us can do that. In most times, what people call social redeeming value is nothing more than marketability. Social redeeming value is subject to the culture of lack. If most of us had been alive during the Inquisition of Galileo, it is for certain that the vast majority of us would have sided with the Roman Catholic Church. Out of fear, ignorance, and lack of creativity, we would have failed to recognize the truthfulness and relevance of his work. We would have dutifully parroted the church line that his work lacked social redeeming value. Knowing this, it is incredible that the United States Supreme Court could say, Implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without social importance. Obscenity issues have been important enough to have reached the Supreme Court on a number of occasions. Once these cases reached the Supreme Court, however, they became subject to personal opinions, prejudices, and politics. Thomas Treadwell attended the New York Constitutional Convention in June and July of 1788 and made an accurate prediction. He observed that the powers of the judiciary could be extended to any degree short of Almighty. In our time, we witnessed this when G. W. Bush became president in 2000 by one vote of the Supreme Court justices. It is one vote that keeps obscenity a crime in freedom-loving America. In reality, contrary to what the Supreme Court has declared, obscenity, offensive, and unpopular speech are all protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. And money is not speech. The First Amendment was written to protect speech we may dislike, disagree with, or hate. Speech that never bothered anyone would not need constitutional protection. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the First Amendment grants freedom to the thought that we might hate. It is clear that the First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech. The five justices of the Supreme Court, who by fiat made law stating that obscenity is not protected speech, were wrong, and they had been wrong before. They are fallible. They simply voted their personal opinions, prejudices, and politics. They neglected their duty. The first requirement of a judge is to be impartial and to consider the facts. Otherwise, it is as Charles Evans Hughes observed, we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. When you think of a judge, think of King Solomon. Obscenity, nutritional information, government secrets, and cover-ups must have a constitutional right to be aired in the bright light of day, in the marketplace of ideas. No state or local government has the constitutional right to regulate commerce. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that only Congress has the right to regulate commerce among the states. States cannot ban the sale of obscenity within their borders. The Constitution is a national document. We became a nation to serve national purposes. Justice John Marshall said that sovereignty of a state extends to everything that exists by its own authority, or that is introduced by its permission. But it does not extend to those means that are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers given to it by the people of the United States. None of these powers is given to any state. These powers are given to a government whose laws are declared to be supreme. Thus, the people of a state cannot confer sovereignty that will extend over them. A New York Supreme Court ruling zoned out of existence adult bookstores and strip clubs. Obscenity laws like civil rights laws must not be subject to the neurotic whims of governors, mayors, or local community standards. Today, governors and legislators in some states are trying to suppress voting for certain people. Civil rights laws and obscenity laws must be federal laws applied to all the states. Local religio-economic despots must have no control over these laws. These laws must avoid discrimination. There must be no restraint of trade. There is no constitutional defense for the deliberate zoning out of existence sexual businesses. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states, No preference shall be given by any regulations of commerce and revenue to the parts of one state over those of another, according to the Constitution. No state or local government can outlaw or obstruct the traffic of adult sexually explicit businesses or material. Only Congress has the power to do this. But Congress is bound by the First Amendment, checks and balances. In Gibbons v. Ogden, May 1824, the United States Supreme Court ruled that commerce cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior. Things that affect other states, all of the external concerns of the nation, and those internal concerns which affect the state generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of government. The completely internal commerce of a state, these may be considered as reserved to the state itself, obscenity, pornography, all forms of communications are national concerns in terms of protection. States and local governments have no constitutional powers to ban any form of communication or commerce. States and local governments have no constitutional powers to deem anything obscene, either. They cannot ban or censor. They also have no constitutional power to censor a nutritionist who wants to speak. If states and local governments had these powers, then Justice Jackson's observation would be correct. The power of a sovereign state over commerce, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain at pleasure. In 25B, West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnett, 1943, Justice Jackson wrote, if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can describe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion to be continued to the end.