State, 344 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Minn.1984) (discussing ongoing sexual exploitation that continued for a period of time). 2 . Bussmann also claims the clergy provision is overbroad, but he does not identify a constitutional defect. ''[T]he overbreadth doctrine departs from traditional rules of standing to permit, in the First Amendment area, a challenge to a statute both on its face and as applied to the defendant.” State v. Machholz, 574 N.W.2d 415, 419 (Minn.1998) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). Members of the clergy have neither a First Amendment nor a liberty interest in sexual activity gained through exploitation of the clergy-counselee relationship. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-67, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878) (<HOLDING>); Talbert v. State, No. CR 05-1279, 367 Ark.
holding statute criminalizing speech intended to influence a juror did not violate the first amendment holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights holding statute that prohibited repeated telephone calls  with intent to harass did not violate the first amendment