In the 1960s, enlightened people wanted to challenge the federal ban on
condom use by married people.A 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,A 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 firstA 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 hasA never been challenged byA 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 feminizedA 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.

A This is entirely untrue.A Any American, male or female, single or
married, can complain in federal courtA 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 toA 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 theA First Dream dating site, has $30,000 of theA $50,000A his
lawyer wantsA 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

Article Source: http://www.articleset.com