Domestic Violence Registry proposed in Texas

[Fletch]

Why registries are a failure.

YouTube - Chrysanthi Leon. University of Delaware - Sex Offender Expert.wmv

She brings up an incredible point that really hit home for me... as I look into adopting older kids, what happens if I wind up with a kid who's on the sex offender registry? She mentions that in her local church, it destroyed the church community because folks were so paranoid about what it meant to have a child sex offender going there. How is it that we can so easily destroy the life of a child who may or may not have any idea of the significance of their actions?

We're supposed to be the adults here, the ones who rein in our fears and impulses and take measured steps to deal with problems. Instead, we abdicate that responsibility and allow the moral cowardice of some dictate that we will abandon reason and simply respond with panic.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No. What gives THEM the authority to pass it? Which enumerated power gives THEM the power?? It seems to me that if the authors of the constitution went through the trouble to enumerate powers, that list should be the only list of powers they get without further amendments to include more enumerated powers. The list of government powers does not include a "9th amendment" giving them further powers than what are listed in the document.

Why are citizens always on the defensive, having to prove to some pseudo-intellectual why they deserve liberty?

I never even made a constitutional argument in my OP. There are more reasons to oppose something than the constitution.

And with that answer you demonstrate you know nothing at all about the function and relationship between the various levels of sovereign entities making up the United States of America. Nothing. Perhaps less than nothing.

The federal Constitution contains the powers granted the federal government by the people. It is the creation of a collective known as the United States of America. Not a collective as in a Soviet-style collective, but a collective for the mutual security and benefit of the people. It creates the United States. Not the individual states. The federal Constitution restricts states from certain acts. Powers not specifically denied the states are reserved to be exercised by the states. State laws must comport with the US Constitution, treaties, federal laws and regulations as required by the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

As sovereign entities, the various states have no requirement to limit their scope and purview to the specific enumerated powers of the federal government (federal matters). In fact, it would be unconstitutional for a state to limit its role to federal matters contained in the Constitution, because those are the very powers the states are prohibited from exercising! Why is that difficult to understand or accept?

Powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to the states are retained by the states. States are not prohibited from creating registries. The people of the Sovereign State of Texas is not prohibited from passing such a law. This law, if passed, is fully compliant with the federal Constitution.

Should they pass this law? I guess it depends first on if you live there. I don't, so as far as I'm concerned I don't need to spend ten seconds thinking about it. I wouldn't support one if they wanted to pass it in Indiana.

Your constant twisting and contorting of the Constitution is mind boggling. You claim to support the Constitution yet advocate for the United State of Anarchy. Under your logic there need be no states. I want power left where it belongs - in the hands of the people.

 

[machete]

And with that answer you demonstrate you know nothing at all about the function and relationship between the various levels of sovereign entities making up the United States of America. Nothing. Perhaps less than nothing.

personal attack

Powers not specifically denied the states are reserved to be exercised by the states.

if at all,,,a state must first get the permission to do a particular from a social contract,,,and that act must not violate natural law...

As sovereign entities, the various states have no requirement to limit their scope and purview to the specific enumerated powers of the federal government (federal matters).

but they arent allowed to do anything they want just because nobody said they couldnt...

not a hard concept to grasp

Powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to the states are retained by the states. States are not prohibited from creating registries.

your argument fails because you cannot prove where states are permitted to create registries...

The people of the Sovereign State of Texas is not prohibited from passing such a law. This law, if passed, is fully compliant with the federal Constitution.

well,,, you sure got that one wrong

Your constant twisting and contorting of the Constitution is mind boggling.

pkb

 

[Bond 281]

And with that answer you demonstrate you know nothing at all about the function and relationship between the various levels of sovereign entities making up the United States of America. Nothing. Perhaps less than nothing.

The federal Constitution contains the powers granted the federal government by the people. It is the creation of a collective known as the United States of America. Not a collective as in a Soviet-style collective, but a collective for the mutual security and benefit of the people. It creates the United States. Not the individual states. The federal Constitution restricts states from certain acts. Powers not specifically denied the states are reserved to be exercised by the states. State laws must comport with the US Constitution, treaties, federal laws and regulations as required by the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.

As sovereign entities, the various states have no requirement to limit their scope and purview to the specific enumerated powers of the federal government (federal matters). In fact, it would be unconstitutional for a state to limit its role to federal matters contained in the Constitution, because those are the very powers the states are prohibited from exercising! Why is that difficult to understand or accept?

Powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to the states are retained by the states. States are not prohibited from creating registries. The people of the Sovereign State of Texas is not prohibited from passing such a law. This law, if passed, is fully compliant with the federal Constitution.

Should they pass this law? I guess it depends first on if you live there. I don't, so as far as I'm concerned I don't need to spend ten seconds thinking about it. I wouldn't support one if they wanted to pass it in Indiana.

Your constant twisting and contorting of the Constitution is mind boggling. You claim to support the Constitution yet advocate for the United State of Anarchy. Under your logic there need be no states. I want power left where it belongs - in the hands of the people.

What part of GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION do you not understand? I see you in threads all the time to only make a facetious comment about how it's not in Indiana, and therefore need not concern us. Well guess what chief, a state enacting a new legislation can very well set precedence that other states follow. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, so you really ought to cut the crap and either contribute to the discussion or let people discuss what they want in GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION and stop trying to impose only your topics of discussion.

As to the matter at hand, sex offender registries have been upheld by SCOTUS. I'm not familiar with the Texas state constitution, but there may be basis for legal challenge there. I think the issue is really that it would be abused, and even so would be fairly ineffective towards actually reducing or preventing abuse. In addition, it is dehumanizing and undoubtedly makes rehabilitation difficult. I see at best a marginal increase in safety at large financial cost, and the easy ability for people to extract brutal public vengeance upon former partners. The injustice and limitations of freedom far outweigh marginal safety gains.

 

[hornadylnl]

What part of GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION do you not understand? I see you in threads all the time to only make a facetious comment about how it's not in Indiana, and therefore need not concern us. Well guess what chief, a state enacting a new legislation can very well set precedence that other states follow. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, so you really ought to cut the crap and either contribute to the discussion or let people discuss what they want in GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION and stop trying to impose only your topics of discussion.

As to the matter at hand, sex offender registries have been upheld by SCOTUS. I'm not familiar with the Texas state constitution, but there may be basis for legal challenge there. I think the issue is really that it would be abused, and even so would be fairly ineffective towards actually reducing or preventing abuse. In addition, it is dehumanizing and undoubtedly makes rehabilitation difficult. I see at best a marginal increase in safety at large financial cost, and the easy ability for people to extract brutal public vengeance upon former partners. The injustice and limitations of freedom far outweigh marginal safety gains.

You're missing the point. Rather than ignoring these threads, the detractors keep dumping in them hoping that these particular topics will be banned from the forum. Several other topics have already been banned using this same tactic.

ETA: What happens in other states is important to us. Like you said, policies implemented in other states are looked at and considered by others. I guess some here have never heard the old saying "As California goes, so goes the Nation".

 

[eatsnopaste]

I believe such programs violate a person's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

right up until they rape my daughter, sister, wife neighbor...then they are trampling on others pursuit of life, liberty...you going to give them one freebie? then come down hard the second..or maybe third time? We just had a sex offender released "accidentally" up here in South Bend. He raped a woman at a Walgreens, in the middle of the afternoon, two whole days after being let out. Was that his free pass rape or does his first offense count? It may not have been rape so if not do you count them as separate?

 

[public servant]

I'm saying that making them into social lepers who are not allowed to live a normal life makes them MORE likely to commit more crimes.

Do you feel the same about sex offender registries? And from previous posts...I'm sure you do. They made themselves into social lepers when they decided to have sex with little kids.

Rambone...would you let a known child rapist babysit your kids? Would you want a known wife beater marrying your daughter?

I'm good with life in prison...but not many people have the balls for that. They get all teary eyed and think these social degenerates can be saved. And then they get all warm and fuzzy inside because they think they saved the world.

 

[level.eleven]

If what other states are doing doesn't matter in our state our politicians shouldn't use stats and models from programs belonging to other states to justify their legislation.

Unicorns, indeed.

 

[public servant]

and anyone who arrests someone for failing to register for any list is on the wrong side...

I agree with very few of the opinions you express here anyway...so if you're including convicted sex offender registries...I'm OK with that as well.

 

[hornadylnl]

If what other states are doing doesn't matter in our state our politicians shouldn't use stats and models from programs belonging to other states to justify their legislation.

Unicorns, indeed.

Every law in Indiana is new and original to this country. Outside influence had no bearing on a single one of them.

 

[level.eleven]

Every law in Indiana is new and original to this country. Outside influence had no bearing on a single one of them.

Smoking bans.
Reciprocity.

 

[88GT]

I'm of the mindset that government should have to cite where in the constitution they derive the power to do the things that they do. Otherwise you have guys like yourself trying to argue that it is perfectly constitutional to mandate microchips in citizens' heads because there is no amendment against it. I believe such programs violate a person's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

And for those bad laws that prove to be "constitutional," citizens still have the moral obligation to stand against them. And for all the laws that you claim to "disagree" with, you sure spend a lot of time defending the government doing those things.

You do realize that the enumerated powers apply only to the federal government, don't you? States are not limited by the same powers (concept of incorporation notwithstanding). There is no real "constitutional" litmus test applicable to the states (man, do I feel like I've written this exact post before, deja vu, big time) outside the supremacy issues. Case in point: 12 of the original 13 colonies had laws on the books MANDATING church attendance even after the Constitution was ratified. No one batted an eye.

personal attack

Hardly

if at all,,,a state must first get the permission to do a particular from a social contract,,,and that act must not violate natural law...

In a perfect world. And no arguments that this concept is a large part of the foundation of our form and function of government (at the federal level). But by all arguments, the permission is granted when the people allow it via the government they created and participated in.

but they arent allowed to do anything they want just because nobody said they couldnt...

Not anything, but almost. Constrained only by their own constitutions and the patience of the people to live with it.

your argument fails because you cannot prove where states are permitted to create registries...

He doesn't have to. That's not how it works. It might very well violate the premise of natural law and individual sovereignty, but only our federal government is so limited.

I don't like it any more than you. And more than once I've argued that the reality is fundamentally and illogically wrong. But legally, that's the way it is.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I believe such programs violate a person's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

right up until they rape my daughter, sister, wife neighbor...then they are trampling on others pursuit of life, liberty...you going to give them one freebie? then come down hard the second..or maybe third time? We just had a sex offender released "accidentally" up here in South Bend. He raped a woman at a Walgreens, in the middle of the afternoon, two whole days after being let out. Was that his free pass rape or does his first offense count? It may not have been rape so if not do you count them as separate?

As the video rambone posted pointed out, Criminologists and Sociologists who study this say that registries don't work. I'd take their opinion over certain citizens who knees jerk around more than a Japanese kid who watches too much Pokemon.

 

[Benny]

Do you feel the same about sex offender registries? And from previous posts...I'm sure you do. They made themselves into social lepers when they decided to have sex with little kids.

****ing seriously!

How anyone can defend the rights of a piece of **** child molester is way, way beyond me. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it...If you are an adult and you molest a child, you should have the "right" to 1 of 3 options:

1. Death penalty.

2. Life in prison.

3. Castration.

It may or may not be best that I'm not in charge, but those 3 options would be the only acceptable punishments if it were up to me.

I agree that registries are stupid, but until this scum of the earth is made to pick of of those 3 options, the registries are better than nothing.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You're missing the point. Rather than ignoring these threads, the detractors keep dumping in them hoping that these particular topics will be banned from the forum. Several other topics have already been banned using this same tactic.

ETA: What happens in other states is important to us. Like you said, policies implemented in other states are looked at and considered by others. I guess some here have never heard the old saying "As California goes, so goes the Nation".

Nobody wants to ban anything. I asked a simple question - what is the imperative that prevents the people of Texas from passing this law. No one wants to respond to this because there is none. Emotions. That's all. I don't like it so a sovereign state 1000 miles away shouldn't do it. That's just a goofy position to take.

There are posters who go out of their way to inflame, not inform. All of the "bad cop" threads are an example. They all ultimately degenerate to the same thing and many are closed. My question - is there anyone that doesn't know there are bad, even evil, cops? Examples abound of other non-LEO government issues. It reaches the level of ubsurdity sometimes.

What exactly is the purpose of raising the same issue, albeit different events, over and over and over? We all get it. I don't understand the incessent primal urge to prove it by spamming the board on a daily basis.

The idea that because state A passes a law it is coming to Indiana is falacious and grossly exagerated. Is anyone concerned Indiana is going to pass to pass a clean air act? Greenhouse gas bill? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? Training prior to LTCH requirement? These are law already on the books in other states. Is Indiana on the brink of bankruptcy like a few other states?

Shouldn't we all adopt the chicken little position because of laws already on the books elsewhere? No. I'm not concerned about any of them, or the 10s of thousands of other laws on another state's books not in Indiana code. The beautiful thing about Indiana is not the weather. It is that the people are more center right than most other states. Perfect? No. But on balance it's one of the better places to live. Much better than to the east, west or north of us. We've been nustled next to Chicago for how many years and the influence of a city with a population greater than our entire state hasn't corrupted our state values? How can that possibly be?

 

[machete]

He doesn't have to. That's not how it works.

it IS how it works,,,for ANY government...

youve got it totally backwards on where any government gets its power...

ANY government only gets powers from specific sayso from the people,,, they dont start out with powers... where did these powers come from???

 

[machete]

Nobody wants to ban anything. I asked a simple question - what is the imperative that prevents the people of Texas from passing this law.

knowing how to put something evil into simple words and make it sound legit to people who arent paying attention or dont know better is a skill of government spokesmen... it falls apart to anyone who thinks about it,,,so like goebbels said --- “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

where in the constitution does it say that a state cant keep you from wearing a colts jersey???

 

[rambone]

****ing seriously!

How anyone can defend the rights of a piece of **** child molester is way, way beyond me. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it...If you are an adult and you molest a child, you should have the "right" to 1 of 3 options:

1. Death penalty.

2. Life in prison.

3. Castration.

It may or may not be best that I'm not in charge, but those 3 options would be the only acceptable punishments if it were up to me.

I agree that registries are stupid, but until this scum of the earth is made to pick of of those 3 options, the registries are better than nothing.

If "Unlikeable Group X" are free citizens outside of prison walls, then all God-given natural rights of man apply to them. How anyone could encourage bigger government in this day and age is beyond me.

If SemperFi wants to see what an emotional response, read the above..

I asked a simple question - what is the imperative that prevents the people of Texas from passing this law. No one wants to respond to this because there is none. Emotions. That's all. I don't like it so a sovereign state 1000 miles away shouldn't do it. That's just a goofy position to take.

SemperFi, always asking the tough questions. Lets examine the Texas constitution then, smart guy. The TX constitution guarantees equal rights to all free men. That took me literally 60 seconds. Rights, such as privacy, come to mind. Their silly reasoning for this registry, "to create safer dating," is what is based on emotions. Registries violate rights; Rights to liberty & pursuit of happiness, among others. That doesn't mean much when you don't follow the constitution or care about rights to begin with.

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION**ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

And your obtuse view that we should put the blinders on to the destruction of liberty as long as it doesn't affect us directly is laughable. I can always count on you to chime in and tell people to go back to sleep.

The idea that because state A passes a law it is coming to Indiana is falacious and grossly exagerated. Is anyone concerned Indiana is going to pass to pass a clean air act? Greenhouse gas bill? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? Training prior to LTCH requirement? These are law already on the books in other states. Is Indiana on the brink of bankruptcy like a few other states?

Why weren't you crying about all the dozens of threads about the Arizona immigration law?? It has nothing to do with us right?

You should troll every thread that talks about state's tightening the noose regarding gun laws.

Oh, California is creating a bullet registry? WHO CARES! THEY ARE 1000+ MILES AWAY! HOW CAN YOU TAKE THIS GOOFY POSITION? THEY ARE SOVEREIGN AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERRORIZE THEIR CITIZENS! IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE!

Shouldn't we all adopt the chicken little position because of laws already on the books elsewhere? No. I'm not concerned about any of them, or the 10s of thousands of other laws on another state's books not in Indiana code.

You don't care, because Liberty isn't part of your belief system. Instead of encouraging people to take notice of the destruction of freedom everywhere in the Land of the Free, you tell them to look away and be a good little citizen who doesn't speak out against tyranny. I'll leave you with a quote I happen to believe in. If more people were on board with it, we would live in an entirely different country.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -MLK Jr.

 

[public servant]

If "Unlikeable Group X" are free citizens outside of prison walls, then all God-given natural rights of man apply to them.

The offenders are not free. I consider the registries for these type of criminals the same as I do probation. Part of the sentence. The registrations may be an additional 10 year sentence or lifetime.

Screw up (in this case by not registering) and back to the pokey you go.

I'd rather they spend the rest of their lives in prison...but for now at least, that doesn't happen. I'll keep hoping.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nobody wants to ban anything. I asked a simple question - what is the imperative that prevents the people of Texas from passing this law. No one wants to respond to this because there is none. Emotions. That's all. I don't like it so a sovereign state 1000 miles away shouldn't do it. That's just a goofy position to take.

There are posters who go out of their way to inflame, not inform. All of the "bad cop" threads are an example. They all ultimately degenerate to the same thing and many are closed. My question - is there anyone that doesn't know there are bad, even evil, cops? Examples abound of other non-LEO government issues. It reaches the level of ubsurdity sometimes.

What exactly is the purpose of raising the same issue, albeit different events, over and over and over? We all get it. I don't understand the incessent primal urge to prove it by spamming the board on a daily basis.

The idea that because state A passes a law it is coming to Indiana is falacious and grossly exagerated. Is anyone concerned Indiana is going to pass to pass a clean air act? Greenhouse gas bill? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? Training prior to LTCH requirement? These are law already on the books in other states. Is Indiana on the brink of bankruptcy like a few other states?

Shouldn't we all adopt the chicken little position because of laws already on the books elsewhere? No. I'm not concerned about any of them, or the 10s of thousands of other laws on another state's books not in Indiana code. The beautiful thing about Indiana is not the weather. It is that the people are more center right than most other states. Perfect? No. But on balance it's one of the better places to live. Much better than to the east, west or north of us. We've been nustled next to Chicago for how many years and the influence of a city with a population greater than our entire state hasn't corrupted our state values? How can that possibly be?

The topics of Religion and Race were banned in this same fashion. It was more to do with the board infighting over the topics than what was actually posted regarding to the topics. The Girls With Guns thread was the same way. Some people didn't approve of the pictures. Let's see. If I find scantily clad pictures of women offensive and I see a thread titled Girls With Guns, who's the one with the problem when I click on it? Do I not have enough will power to avoid topics that I may find offensive?

If these posts truly represent the fringe and were ignored by those who disagree, they will go away on their own. Those who disagree only fuel the fire and keep them going. Just as every person has a right to free speech (yes, I know this is a private board and as such is entitled to limit speech), they are not entitled to an audience. If someone posts something and doesn't find an audience, then most likely they will quit posting such topics. Of course, that would be the adult way to handle it.