In the 1960s, enlightened people wanted to challenge the federal ban on condom use by married people. A married couple in Connecticut volunteered to have a volunteer policeman come to their house and knock on their door. When they answered the door, they were dressed for bed and carrying condoms. The policeman then had “probable cause” to arrest them for using condoms in the bedroom.

It was necessary to create the above bizarre charade in order for that couple to become Griswald vs Connecticut, which ended up in the Supreme Court saying that a married couple’s sex life is not the business of the federal government.

Let us fast forward to 2008, where a very bizarre law called IMBRA has been operating without a restraining order for 1.5 years. The law, called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, forces foreign women to read and sign the background checks of American men before they are allowed to be contacted by those Americans…despite the fact that many foreign women do not have email addresses and wish to be first contacted by telephone or postal mail. IMBRA totally violates the civil rights of Americans who should have the right to remain anonymous in personal contact with strangers and not have the US government interfering by telling the other person everything about them.

The main reason why IMBRA has never been challenged by an American citizen (a few dating sites made a half-hearted and thoroughly incompetent attempt to protest the law), is because American men are generally feminized and complacent like Marc Rudov says.

But there is a more mundane problem than that: too many people mistakenly believe that one cannot have “standing” to challenge IMBRA without somehow being a “member” of a dating website and getting “rejected” by the website owner because of one’s background.

 This is entirely untrue.  Any American, male or female, single or married, can complain in federal court about the fact that their background is being checked at all. Any American, male or female, single or married, can point out that the foreigners are losing their God-given right to broadcast their personal contact information to anyone and everyone via the Internet or via bathroom walls or smoke-signals or whatever.

A married American woman can legitimately claim that the US federal government (Congress and Homeland Security) has no right to stop her, or hamper her, in any quest she might undertake to meet a foreigner for any reason, including cheating on her husband. The government has no right to inform either her husband or the foregner that she is cheating on the husband. Period. End of story.

I would like to see a married American woman dare to get a federal judge to announce that the federal government can, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, stop her from cuckolding her husband.

Remember that all these freaky Nanny State regulatory laws are being upheld because of the 1937 decision of a newly left wing Supreme Court in the case of US vs Corpolene Products. The court declared then that Congress can pass any law it wants and it will be considered Constitutional if it is deemed that Congress “thought it was being reasonable” and if the case can be made that the law “effects commerce even indirectly”. In effect, US vs Corpolene was just about as fascist as the laws being passed in Stalinist Russia and Hitler’s Germany at the same time…it was just that the US Congress never dared to make the kinds of laws that this precedent would have helped uphold.

There is a footnote to US vs Corpolene Products that says “However, the above does not apply if the the law infringes on personal civil rights as opposed to the rights of a business”.

Because IMBRA infringes on the rights of a dating site’s customers and not so much on the rights of the dating site owners (who actually benefit from the inability of their clients to easily communicate with foreign women), it should be easy for anyone challenging IMBRA to actually use US vs Corpolene Products to strike down the law.

But, first, it will take a volunteer to do a Pro Se challenge.

Keep in mind that nobody is willing to finance an IMBRA challenge.

Jack Bragg of the First Dream dating site, has $30,000 of the $50,000 his lawyer wants to do a challenge.

If anyone has an idea where the remaining $20,000 can come from, we could have an IMBRA challenge in Texas to complement the Hollander VAWA challenge now going on in a federal court in New York City.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...