Cause a rapid 2nd question to petition by lower United States House on
Taxing lead with "Concentration camps for sex offenders?" A Chicago
lawyer has facetiously suggested in private conversationsthat the
government should build concentration camps to house sex offenders who
have completed their prison sentences.
His thinking: As more and more residential locations are ruled off
limits to sex offenders, concentration camps would at least provide
them with housing. Insome areas, sex offenders - homeless because they
can't find alegal place to live - already gather in unofficial (and
unauthorized) camps.
Governments at various levels havegradually been narrowing the
areaswhere sex offenders may live. Now, Congress is poised to
furthercomplicate housing for sex offenders.
On June 10, the U.S. House voted 420 to 10 in favor of an amendment
sponsored by Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) that would bar those guilty
of sex of a sex offense against a minor from obtaining mortgages
through the Federal Housing Administration. (Asimilar ban already is
in effect for Section 8 subsidized housing.)
The argument in favor: Why shouldtaxpayers help subsidize sex
offenders?. 30 Comments
Fima | June 15, 2010 9:27 PM | Reply
Welcome to the new brave world: Nazi style US democracy.
last year we had 705,000 sex offenders in USA. This group is growing
fast, about 6% a year. Now we may have 755,000, next year 800,000.
You think you will continue stupid joking, think again.
This is real problem. No country in the world have Megan Law.
Think why. Nobody wants to be named Nazi style state.
Americans are very selfish, know everything of course.
Good luck with concentration camps.
Usually people who passed concentration camps laws got there first.
All experts in corrections know that one of the most important factors
in preventing recidivism is stable housing. It seems that politicians
and many in the public do everything they can to prevent former
offenders from having stable housing. They would rather score
political points even if it means making communities less safe.
Well I guess the question could be asked "Why subsidize housing for
anyone?" But if we are going to subsidize anyone then what is withthis
blatant "profiling" of sex offenders. Once a person has paid for his
crime why knock him down when he is trying to get his life back on
track...why penalize his wife and his kids and his grand kids?
MOM: You obviously know very little about this subject. Not all Sex
Offenders are child rapists, predators or molesters.
If you have a daughter that sends nude pictures of herself to her
boyfriend, she is considered a sex offender (producer, distributor
andpossessor of kiddie porn)
If you have a son that is 18, 19, 20 or up that has sex with his 16 or
17 year old girlfriend, under thelaw about statutory rape he is nowa
'rapist' even if it was consensualbetween him and his girlfriend and
despite him not hurting her, statutory rape is considered 'violent' by
the scum ball lawyers.
Getting drunk and urinating in public is a sex offense, especially if
the 'victim' is a man-hating, shadow-jumping feminist
Having sex with your man at a parkin your car and getting caught? You
are now a sex offender.
The problem is regular people are being put on a worthless registry
next to the scum of society and being judged as no better than
theworst on the list.
And the concentration camps will cost money, and not really generate
any revenue. As a result of spending more than what it is earning,
taxes will be necessary tomaintain the camps and provide forthe
residents. This of course means that the costs will be high and then
you will whine and moan about high taxes and the Worst Type Sex
Offender of all will promise to cut taxes if you vote for them. When
elected, the WorstType Sex Offender who has whoredfor your vote will
then cut taxes, meaning that there is fewer money, offenders will be
released resulting in a few bad apples released, committing a serious
crime starting the cycle again withyou complaining why this
happenedleading to more 'tough on sex offender' BS. To discover what
willhappen, start at the beginning of this paragraph and repeat. In
Taxing following Article Four of the United States Constitution - The
Citizens of each State shall beentitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges
and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to
a number of different interpretations. Some contend thatthe clause
requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that
citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states
while traveling in other states.
Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court,
which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate
against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In
Corfield v. Coryell , 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823)
the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in
respectof which discrimination is barred include
protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty ...
the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in
any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional
pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas
corpus ; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts
of the State;to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or
personal; and an exemption from higher taxesor impositions than are
paid by the other citizens of the State.
Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and
immunities. In Corfield the circuit court sustained a New Jersey law
giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams andoysters.
Extradition of fugitives
Main article: Extradition Clause
A Person charged in any State withTreason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on
demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled,
bedelivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the
Crime.
Clause Two requires that fugitives from justice may be extradited on
the demand of executive authority of the state from which they flee.
The Supreme Court has held that it is not compulsory for the fugitive
to have fled after an indictment was issued, but only that the
fugitive fled after having committed the crime. The Constitution
provides for the extradition of fugitives who have committed " treason
, felony or other crime." That phrase incorporates all acts prohibited
by the laws of a state, including misdemeanors and small, or petty,
offenses.
In Kentucky v. Dennison , 65 U.S. 66 (1860), the Supreme Court held
that the federal courts may not compel state governors to surrender
fugitives through the issue of writs of mandamus . But the offender
hold of Mandamus reverse over State removal of rights becomes a Class
Action by Sex offenders in favor not to be Contrary Notwithstanding to
Law.
--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
goldlandabstracts <http://www.thoughts.com/goldlandabstracts> The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://ptusss.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/guyperea
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>
Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your
system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau of as
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://plus.google.com/100487463984952448443
http://ptusss.blogspot.com/2012/03/march-19-2012-rules-federal-swordfish_18.html
No comments:
Post a Comment