Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
And the Constitution is the superior law. As KSigKid says, there is a very good chance that any state statute making adultery unconstitutional would not pass federal constitutional muster.
Besides, if I've got it all straight, the actual acts of adultery occured in Argentina, not in South Carolina, so any SC law would be irrelevant.
|
This sums up the points I was concerned about quite well, although I think MysticCat meant to say, "making adultery
illegal would not pass federal constitutional muster." Maybe it would; maybe it wouldn't. I still don't understand how the prospect that a law might be unconstitutional can be a reason for non-enforcement. In other words, it's still the law until stricken from the books. Right? A constitutional challenge would come later.
On the other point, why would it matter where the adultery took place? Sanford and his wife are residents of South Carolina and fall under SC law. If he married his mistress, would he not be guilty of bigamy? Would it be perfectly fine for him to have wives in Argentina, Georgia, North Carolina, etc., just as long as he doesn't have two wives in SC? I think not. By the same token, it shouldn't matter where the adultery took place.
In fact, it seems to me that bigamy is just as questionable constitutionally as adultery, and yet the government goes after bigamy with a vengeance while waving off adultery as not even worthy of consideration. I'm just wondering why.
Threaded Mode
