- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by Carol DeMoss.
September 5, 2015 at 11:53 am #10996
By Steve Yoder…. The Constitution’s ex post facto clause prohibits passing a law that retroactively increases the punishment for a criminal act that
[See the full post at: Alabama sex offender statutes turn productive citizens into homeless pariahs]
September 5, 2015 at 9:46 pm #10997
Wonderful piece and my thanks to Steven Yoder.
My question for him: when are we likely to see a challenge to Smith v. Doe and do the current Supremes have what it takes to honestly challenge it?
Many are, no doubt, surprised to learn that that champion of gay marriage who argued on its behalf before the Supreme Court, Ted Olson, had also lent his voice in support of that manifestly ignominious decision which was so destructive of individual liberty. This is illustrative of the fatal conceit of progressives in abandoning fundamental tenets of liberalism long ago in its quest to curry favor with the hysterics and to appeal to their ignorance. He, and those like him, need to be held to account for the damaged lives which is the result of their demagoguery.
It took far less courage to argue on behalf of gay marriage in 2014 than it would to argue on behalf of sex offenders, either in 2003 or today.
September 5, 2015 at 10:17 pm #10998
I would not presume to answer on behalf of Steve, but my limited knowledge of the law leads me to believe that the Supreme Court cannot challenge anything. My understanding is that before another case can be heard by them affecting the constitutionality of the registry, it will have to be filed in a lower court…a state court, maybe…and then the decision be appealed up to the next level, and so on until it reaches SCOTUS. And then they have to decide whether to hear it or not. Of course, I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.
September 5, 2015 at 11:21 pm #10999
You are absolutely correct, Sandy. So what I’m asking of Steven is, in effect, to gaze into a crystal ball and to offer his prognostication. So maybe the fairer question might be “Would the Supreme Court consider granting certiorari in hearing such a challenge and, would it have the resolve and integrity that would be required to overturn their earlier abandonment of principle?”
Many who affirmed that earlier decision are still on the bench and, of the newer members, there is little to encourage hope. Certainly, Obama’s additions to the Court are enormously discouraging, from any liberty perspective.
It’s noteworthy that none of them come from a criminal defense background and that it may well be impossible today to advance those with such backgrounds to the Court. In fact, I don’t think any of the Justices come from criminal defense with the exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It is all about prosecution now and has been for many years.
Perhaps it is time to seriously consider term limits for the Justices.
September 9, 2015 at 9:58 am #11000
The constitution is a broad inscription that has been written to protect us from radical laws such as these harsh laws being placed on sex offenders, charging them for a crime they think they may commit in the future. Law makers are blatantly ignoring the constitution and the rights of American citizens across the board.
September 9, 2015 at 4:58 pm #11001
Nobody wants to be around a pedophile,,but this list groups all together. It is kind of like the Salem Witch hunts. Also there is big difference between consensual sex and a violent act, it is ridiculous of everyone to think girls do not have sexual feelings. Girls mature much sooner than boys. And what happened to he paid his debt to society??