SENATE BILL: Rapists Shouldn't Have Custody Act of 2014 (Redraft Law'd)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I can't fathom how any court would consider putting the child with the rape's perpetrator as being in the best interest of the child. No court will ever rule that way. It's not a case by case basis for the family court.

As for the constitutionality, I'm willing to let this be challenged in court, but if we do want to tie regions banning this to some sort of funding, we can. I think this possibility should be banned nationwide though to protect children and protect the victim from being being forced to remain connected to their perpetrator as long as the child is growing up.

[Deus Naturae]

lol @ people being 'concerned' about how constitutional this is or isn't, but apparently not being concerned by the fact that a rapist today has the possibility of gaining custody over a child fathered through unconsensual intercourse

What's the point of even having a Constitution if it can be blatantly violated like this?

[TNF]

lol @ people being 'concerned' about how constitutional this is or isn't, but apparently not being concerned by the fact that a rapist today has the possibility of gaining custody over a child fathered through unconsensual intercourse

What's the point of even having a Constitution if it can be blatantly violated like this?

The Constitution is a creature of interpretation. Just because shua argues that this is unconstitutional does not necessarily make it so. The fact that the federal government takes precedence over the Regional governments is pretty clear. If someone wants to defend the right of rapists to have custody over children they father through rape in the courts, let them do so. But I see no issue with constitutionality in this piece of legislation.

[Deus Naturae]

lol @ people being 'concerned' about how constitutional this is or isn't, but apparently not being concerned by the fact that a rapist today has the possibility of gaining custody over a child fathered through unconsensual intercourse

What's the point of even having a Constitution if it can be blatantly violated like this?

The Constitution is a creature of interpretation. Just because shua argues that this is unconstitutional does not necessarily make it so. The fact that the federal government takes precedence over the Regional governments is pretty clear. If someone wants to defend the right of rapists to have custody over children they father through rape in the courts, let them do so. But I see no issue with constitutionality in this piece of legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously I agree with the intent of this bill, but I don't see how you could claim that it isn't in violation of this clause.

[TNF]

Unless you think that rapists have a "right" to custody of the children they have fathered through rape, I fail to see how that is a violation of the Constitution. (I obviously do not believe such a "right" inherently exists for rapists)

[bore]

As far as I can make out, the constitution is so vague that the federal government can force the regions to do just about anything. The section that would presumably make this law unconstitutional is this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But plainly, that has a loophole so big you could drive a bus through it.

You could (and I'm not saying you'd be right to, but the case is at least plausible) say that these rights of the senate and of the people allow this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because this bill would secure the freedom of rape victims not to have the rapist having custody of their children- and it's certainly an issue of justice as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rape victim will clearly be impacted by a rape and will need support for their mental health.

Under our current constitution, as far as I can see, the senate can basically do anything.

[Deus Naturae]

Unless you think that rapists have a "right" to custody of the children they have fathered through rape, I fail to see how that is a violation of the Constitution. (I obviously do not believe such a "right" inherently exists for rapists)

This bill would require the Regions to not take certain actions. Thus, under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7, the burden of proof is on you to justify how this bill preserves either the rights of the Regions or the rights of the People, as enumerated under the Constitution.

[Deus Naturae]

As far as I can make out, the constitution is so vague that the federal government can force the regions to do just about anything. The section that would presumably make this law unconstitutional is this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But plainly, that has a loophole so big you could drive a bus through it.

You could (and I'm not saying you'd be right to, but the case is at least plausible) say that these rights of the senate and of the people allow this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because this bill would secure the freedom of rape victims not to have the rapist having custody of their children- and it's certainly an issue of justice as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rape victim will clearly be impacted by a rape and will need support for their mental health.

Under our current constitution, as far as I can see, the senate can basically do anything.

Those are all enumerated powers of the Senate, not enumerated rights of the People. While the Senate is empowered to do all of those things, nowhere is it required to do any of them, which would imply that none of those things are constitutionally enumerated rights of the People. As far I can tell, the only places in the Constitution where the rights of the People are enumerated are Article VI and the various amendments.

[bore]

As far as I can make out, the constitution is so vague that the federal government can force the regions to do just about anything. The section that would presumably make this law unconstitutional is this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But plainly, that has a loophole so big you could drive a bus through it.

You could (and I'm not saying you'd be right to, but the case is at least plausible) say that these rights of the senate and of the people allow this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because this bill would secure the freedom of rape victims not to have the rapist having custody of their children- and it's certainly an issue of justice as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rape victim will clearly be impacted by a rape and will need support for their mental health.

Under our current constitution, as far as I can see, the senate can basically do anything.

Those are all enumerated powers of the Senate, not enumerated rights of the People. While the Senate is empowered to do all of those things, nowhere is it required to do any of them, which would imply that none of those things are constitutionally enumerated rights of the People. As far I can tell, the only places in the Constitution where the rights of the People are enumerated are Article VI and the various amendments.

Sure, but if they are enumerated powers of the senate, and they apply to this bill, and I think it's pretty clear they do, then the bill is not unconstitutional.

Besides, I think, if you were committed enough to lawyerly stuff you could make a case out of, in particular, section 3 of the People's rights.

[Cincinnatus]

Gentleman, we had this debate open for a week and we're now at a final vote.  Take the constitutional quandaries to the Commentary thread, or to court.  Either way, quit clogging up my Senate when debate has expired.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Aye

And as Duke alluded to, it's really not difficult, if this is found unconstitutional, to use the nuclear option.

You mean removing all federal funding from a region because they won't do something we legally are not allowed to command them to do?   That should definitely be considered unconstitutional.

Not really because no one is forcing them to take the money.

Ironically, the episode of M.A.S.H where BJ borrows money from Winchester to buy some land and pays for it as Winchester basically try to make him his slave, is on right now.

No, we are just taxing the people of the region, thus lessening the tax base for regional funding for a function, and then withholding the money for that function if they don't do what we tell them in some completely different area. Yeah, not coercive at all.   

The question was whether or not that was constitutional. I never said it was not coercive. Dependency inherently leads to a lack of freedom and flexibility for the duration of the dependence.

I wouldn't support it with regards to an unreletated function and certainly not to this extent, but certainly if Federal tax dollars, applying standards in exchange to make sure that money is used properly is hardly unseemly. In my preference the regions would take the lead for instance on education and the Feds would just fill in the gaps resource wise and thus the impact on the tax base for instance. I am less familiar with this realm of things, and thus maybe as a condition of certain funding for crime matters might be reasonable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Rapists Shouldn't Have Custody Act of 2014:

Aye (: Adam Griffin, Alfred F. Jones, bore, DC al Fine, Goldwater, Lumine, NC Yankee, and TNF
Nay (1): shua
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): TyriontheImperialist

The bill has passed and is presented to the President for executive action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President, I would recommend redrafting the legislation, removing the first half of clause one.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Which part? Do we want to tie this to funding of some sort to avoid a court case or just go with it? I think it's constitutional because we are allowed to make laws that benefit the people's rights, but I could see the court ruling either way if this is taken to court.

[bore]

I thnk, due to the huge exceptions listed in the constitution, this bill is currently constitutional.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I thnk, due to the huge exceptions listed in the constitution, this bill is currently constitutional.

I think it can be argued either way, but I'd agree that given we have the power to make laws concerning the rights of the people. A rape victim has the right to be free of a connection to their attacker and protected from having to interact with them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ Remove this. It is redundant in light of the second sentence, anything missign in the second sentence could merely be moved down to it.

And the word "existing" in front of "legislation in the next sentence of clause 2.

Do that it is merely a matter of legislative supremacy, no?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think you're overthinking this. The text seems fine to me, although maybe it's me, because I'm spending 12 hours a day reading legal jargon. Do we need to go through a redraft process just for that? Removing that sentence sort of makes the bill unclear when I read it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes but the problem is that you are commanding the regions to do something, no? IF you remove the command that is unnecessary anyway, legislative suppremacy would ensure that any such legislation is superceded regardless and their is less grounds for it to be challanged.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right. Here you go. Now the lawsuits will be more difficult.

Nothing about life makes any sense to me anymore, and it's just so refreshing and fantastic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor?

Do you desire a vote on the redraft?

[President Tyrion]

Aye on the final passage of the bill, since I somehow missed that, for the record.

Also, I would rather pass the original version and not the redraft, for the reasons stated elsewhere.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye on the final passage of the bill, since I somehow missed that, for the record.

Also, I would rather pass the original version and not the redraft, for the reasons stated elsewhere.

The redraft is meant to lessen the chance this thing is tied up in court by one of the strict constructionists. I really don't care which one we pass as long as we pass one of them.

[TNF]

I motion for a vote on the redraft.