Alabama, Senate Candidate Moore and Age of Consent Laws

[CountryBoy1981]

my only problem with the "Moore " issue is.... why did it take 40 years for these women to come forward ? Just 4 weeks before the election . He has been in public office the whole time . I'm not saying he's innocent , just curious about the timing .

He is the most hated politician by the Left, even more so than Trump. If there was real dirt to find, they would have found it when he was running for the AL Supreme Court a few years ago. The only way the democratic candidate stands any chance is if there were murder or rape allegations against the republican. Murder allegations would be much easier to verify the veracity of so they went with 40 year old rape allegations.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He is the most hated politician by the Left, even more so than Trump. If there was real dirt to find, they would have found it when he was running for the AL Supreme Court a few years ago. The only way the democratic candidate stands any chance is if there were murder or rape allegations against the republican. Murder allegations would be much easier to verify the veracity of so they went with 40 year old rape allegations.

He should be as hated equally by the right.... and once again, these women didn't come forward, they were sought out. I find it very difficult to believe that these women are simply making up stories. For what? Money? How much money would it take for you to make something, get other people go along with it, knowing full well that in a state such as Alabama, that you (and your family) would be looked down upon by your pretty much everyone else for the rest of your life?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm all for draining swamp...all of it.

BOMBSHELL: Powerful Democrat Ensnared In Major D.C. Sex Scandal Using Taxpayer Money | Daily Wire

 

[halfmileharry]

Power corrupts.
Once these people get some leverage it goes to their head.
Even the best of people will be corrupted by this viper pit.

- - - Updated - - -

Power corrupts.
Once these people get some leverage it goes to their head.
Even the best of people will be corrupted by this viper pit.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I'm saying a woman's age of consent for sex has nothing to do with how old her suitor is. And vice versa. Pretty straight forward

That is the "definition" of what "age of consent" means, but not the appropriate age for the consent to be meaningful with "all comers".

Example, two 9 year-olds playing "if you show me yours, I'll show you mine" changes drastically if one is a teen or 20-something or 30-something, etc.

Another example, two 12 year-olds "playing doctor" changes if one is 17+, 20-something, 30-something, etc.

Even current Indiana law recognizes that extreme age differences matter with a 4 year "Romeo" window for 14- and 15- year-olds. I.e. an 18 year old with a 14 year old is legal, but a 19 year old goes to prison with that same 14 year old.

Following your logic, removing the partner age constraint, the age of consent either becomes 14, or alternatively, a "hard" 16 meaning the boy becomes a felon the day he turns 16 if he has sex with his still 15-year-old girlfriend.

Sorry, Doc, it doesn't compute.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Just to put this in perspective, if you are disgusted by the allegations against Alabama's Senate candidate Moore, ONLY ONE of the alleged victims was "illegal" for him at the time under Alabama's age of consent laws which make it legal once the girl turns 16.

 

[BugI02]

I am deeply ambivalent about this. I certainly want a republican in that seat, but I find the behavior likely true to some extent, creepy and disgusting. While I think the best outcome might be to elect him, the Senate refuses to seat him and the governor appoints a replacement; that unfortunately could lead to the same McConnell-backed douchebag the people defeated in the primary. And it sets a terrible precedent; yet another pathway for the swamp to derail a candidacy it doesn't like - from either side of the aisle that happens to control the chamber in question.

It might be better in the long run to seat him until whatever court cases ensue run their course. If it all dies out from a legal, put up or shut up standpoint we'll know it was just posturing for political purposes

Waiting to see how Conyers and Franken are eventually handled. Republicans need to learn the folly of unilateral disarmament/virtue signaling to Alinskyites who only pretend to value (their own twisted definition of) virtue

If shameful behavior always results in the abrupt end of a political/power broker career I would play along - because it's likely the ratio would be about 3+ dems for every rep

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I am deeply ambivalent about this. I certainly want a republican in that seat, but I find the behavior likely true to some extent, creepy and disgusting. While I think the best outcome might be to elect him, the Senate refuses to seat him and the governor appoints a replacement; that unfortunately could lead to the same McConnell-backed douchebag the people defeated in the primary. And it sets a terrible precedent; yet another pathway for the swamp to derail a candidacy it doesn't like - from either side of the aisle that happens to control the chamber in question.

It might be better in the long run to seat him until whatever court cases ensue run their course. If it all dies out from a legal, put up or shut up standpoint we'll know it was just posturing for political purposes

All of the allegations, including the single, alleged illegal act, with a 14-year-old, occurred 40 years ago. The statute of limitations expired long ago, so there is no legal recourse, only political.

Waiting to see how Conyers and Franken are eventually handled. Republicans need to learn the folly of unilateral disarmament/virtue signaling to Alinskyites who only pretend to value (their own twisted definition of) virtue

If shameful behavior always results in the abrupt end of a political/power broker career I would play along - because it's likely the ratio would be about 3+ dems for every rep

The best "political" play, should Moore be elected (IMO, 50-50 chance) would be to schedule his ethics hearing vote AFTER Franken's and for the Republicans to ABSTAIN from voting on Franken, allowing only the Democrat's to decide Franken's fate. Then, tit-for-tat vote on Moore. Either they both go, or they both stay.

Of course, the Repub's could one up the Dems by expelling Moore and at "no cost" by having another Republican, not the one rejected in the primary, appointed.

 

[BugI02]

Does the governor have carte blanche on the appointment (subject to the same limitations on seating Moore will face), no repeat special election required and he can act immediately? You would think the Dems would want Moore to survive as an albatross around the Republican neck as opposed to seating a clean candidate


Of course, IMO the end game is to make the case that Trump should go - they just didn't think so many of their own would get swept up so soon

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Does the governor have carte blanche on the appointment (subject to the same limitations on seating Moore will face), no repeat special election required and he can act immediately? You would think the Dems would want Moore to survive as an albatross around the Republican neck as opposed to seating a clean candidate

You would think that they would be hoping for that, but they can't have any fingerprints on it... and apparently the folks in Alabama figured they couldn't pull a "Torrecelli", lol!

Of course, IMO the end game is to make the case that Trump should go - they just didn't think so many of their own would get swept up so soon[/QUOTE]

They are in a real pickle with Conyers... the cat is out of the bag for him, but he's threatening to let all of the cats out. That will be big time fun that will dwarf the ruckus over Moore. I'm sure there are plenty of Rs in that bag, but like you, I think their sense of entitlement and past reliance on the "Bill Clinton card" means even more Ds. Regardless, pox on them all.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'm not trying to establish a legal definition. I'm saying my capacity to decide to do something has nothing to do with anyone else. Clearly if establishing law there needs to be some sort of age limit and framework. I'm talking concepts

That is the "definition" of what "age of consent" means, but not the appropriate age for the consent to be meaningful with "all comers".

Example, two 9 year-olds playing "if you show me yours, I'll show you mine" changes drastically if one is a teen or 20-something or 30-something, etc.

Another example, two 12 year-olds "playing doctor" changes if one is 17+, 20-something, 30-something, etc.

Even current Indiana law recognizes that extreme age differences matter with a 4 year "Romeo" window for 14- and 15- year-olds. I.e. an 18 year old with a 14 year old is legal, but a 19 year old goes to prison with that same 14 year old.

Following your logic, removing the partner age constraint, the age of consent either becomes 14, or alternatively, a "hard" 16 meaning the boy becomes a felon the day he turns 16 if he has sex with his still 15-year-old girlfriend.

Sorry, Doc, it doesn't compute.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I'm saying a woman's age of consent for sex has nothing to do with how old her suitor is. And vice versa. Pretty straight forward

I'm not trying to establish a legal definition. I'm saying my capacity to decide to do something has nothing to do with anyone else. Clearly if establishing law there needs to be some sort of age limit and framework. I'm talking concepts

Admittedly, sometimes I am dense, so I am confused if we are talking about the same thing, if you are disagreeing or agreeing, lol!

So, generally, all of the states make it illegal for an "adult" to have sex or sexual contact with a "child" or "non-adult". Even if the sex is "consenual", the law views it as a form of rape because, again generally, a child cannot "consent". Very similar to the concept that a child cannot enter into a binding contract, even though they could sign their name on the dotted line, it's meaningless.

Hopefully, we "all" agree to the above with the only disagreement being at what age that consent becomes meaningful.

So, what age constitutes no longer being a "child" when it comes to sex? I assert that in all other areas of the law, unless the case is exceptional, 16- and 17- year olds are viewed as children, not adults. What is the rationale for them being considered adults when it comes to sex with someone much, much older than themselves? At 16, they cannot sign a contract for a cellphone, but they can consent to sex with a 50 year old?

There is no logic that I can see...

 

[Libertarian01]

When discussing the age of consent we have multiple circles of issues overlapping one another. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to remain entirely focused on what is proper, legal, and right or wrong. These are someones social constructs that are not as simple to define as a physics or math problem.

I will agree that, under the law, a person of X age is legally able to "consent" to sexual acts. This does NOT mean that I accept that the person cannot be abused even though they are "consenting." The age disparity affects the power imbalance between two people. The older a person is the more experience they have, and thus are probably better at getting what they want. Consider your choice between two (2) surgeons, one just got out of med school a year ago and one has twenty (20) years of experience over the recent grad. Which one would you want to perform a moderately complex procedure on you? Sure, the first one is legally able to perform (read: consent) to doing the procedure on you, but the one with an additional two (2) decades of experience will be FAR better able to handle any complications that may arise.

Thus it also goes with attempting to seduce someone. While charisma and charm are certainly a factor that cannot be measured, the amount of experience the seducer has certainly comes into play. They know more of what to say, how to say it, and how to read facial cues and body expression. See Groundhog Day for a PERFECT example of how Bill Murray's character seduced Andie MacDowell's character.

So while a sexual encounter might be legal it could simultaneously be abusive. For Roy Moore to target girls with an extreme age difference marks him, in my opinion, as a predator. And while in a court of law he is fully entitled to be presumed innocent, I am also allowed to form an opinion based upon the known facts at hand. Multiple women have come forward regarding what he did to them. A coworker has come forward saying it was common knowledge around the office of what type of person he would date. There has been ZERO evidence to back up his claims that this is a purely political. While some would argue that the women went to liberal news outlets, exactly how much traction would they have gotten from Fox news? My presumption is, "not much, IF any."

As we grow our brains are still developing up until our late teens or early twenties. We are still a little "unstable" at such an early age. I know this goes against the grain of many long held social traditions, but modern medicine has taught us this. And I agree that an 18 year old is more mature than a 16 year old who is more mature than a 14 year old, but that doesn't alter the reality that a 32 year old has them all beat by a significant margin.

Another problem is that no candidate is perfect. What foibles and character flaws are we willing to accept in "our guy/gal?" Whatever they are, the person should have the decency to bring them up themselves before asking us to choose them. Pres George W Bush did this with his drinking problem. He was forthright and honest about his previous problem drinking. Thus the public was able to avoid the political unpleasantries of a opposing politician making the accusation.

No matter the outcome, our society is suffering from the polarization of our current political animus.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hoosierdoc]

So when Moore wins is the senate going to try to toss him? This stuff happened around the time Kennedy was drowning women

 

[BugI02]

I think that might be the best outcome, Doc. Senate refuses to seat him, governor appoints an acceptable republican to replacew him. If he is seated, he is a millstone around the neck of the party and a major distraction, because I believe he really is a creeper

Since the seat will safely go to a republican, expect olympic caliber posturing and virtue signaling from the republicans. The left may just try to quietly support seating him because of his aforementioned baggage

 

[hoosierdoc]

How can the senate refuse to seat a duly elected senator? That would be a huge constitutional problem.

moore has denied every bit of this. No one will produce the yearbook. His picture signed "D.A." Was his assistant's initials who used them when she signed his name. No one is going under oath. Forty year-old accusations should not derail someone unless you can prove it. zero possibility to prove it did not did not happen.

franken and conyers and these other dolts have admitted everything. Big difference

 

[T.Lex]

How can the senate refuse to seat a duly elected senator? That would be a huge constitutional problem.

It's actually not. Baked into Article 1 is that both Houses are able to judge who is properly a representative and a senator.

There are cases that make it not as broad as that, but that in itself is a constitutional problem: the judiciary determining who can participate in the legislative.

 

[hoosierdoc]

what of this? Looks like that wording was used to block political opponents until a lawsuit limited its use?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

From the decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership

 

[BugI02]

Excerpt from Article 1 Section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[T.Lex]

what of this? Looks like that wording was used to block political opponents until a lawsuit limited its use?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

Oh absolutely. Everything is political.

IIRC, it was used during Reconstruction to refuse Southerners into Congress due to widespread voter fraud/intimidation.

There was something recent on this, too, from Illinois. Can't remember if it was Obama's seat or some other corruption issue.