COMMON CRIMINAL PROSCRIPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE OR ARGUABLY SHOULD BE REGARDED AS BEYOND THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE ARE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING THE POSSESSION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA, THE SCREENING AND VIEWING OF OBSCENE FILMS, A WOMAN'S DECISION TO TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY, AND SEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS. LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER RECOGNIZED BY THE NATION'S JUDICIARY ARE NOTED, AND TRADITIONAL JURISPRUDENTIAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OF MORALITY ARE REVIEWED. AN APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IS SUGGESTED THAT WOULD PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO CARRY OUT ITS LEGITIMATE FUNCTION WITHOUT UNNECESSARILY ABRIDGING PERSONAL LIBERTY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE VALIDITY OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE FACED WITH A DUE PROCESS CHALLENGE BE DETERMINED BY THE FOLLOWING TEST: DOES THE CONDUCT PROSCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE ENTAIL A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF DIRECT PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, OR FINANCIAL HARM TO INDIVIDUALS NOT CONSENTING TO THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION? IT IS ARGUED THAT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO LEVY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO IMPOSE THE MORAL VALUES OF THE MAJORITY ON THE REST OF SOCIETY UNLESS THOSE VALUES COINCIDE WITH THE LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT. IN THE CONTEXT UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT FUNCTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PROTECTING THE PERSONS AND PROPERTY OF INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE TANGIBLY HARMFUL ACTS OF OTHERS.