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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I support. This seems to be a pretty cut and dry issue.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I support. This seems to be a pretty cut and dry issue.

I'm not so sure it is.

For one thing, it's not clear what the constitutional authority is the Senate is relying on here to delve into regional custody issues and prohibiting the regions from taking certain actions.

More fundamentally, is the assumption here that a perpetrator can never be a fit parent to a child conceived in such an act?  Or is this about punishment?  It's one thing to say a child should not be taken away from a victim and given to the perpetrator, but that's not what this bill says.

There's no reason to keep the victim and the perpetrator tied together like that. That's why I'd support this without question. Even if the perpetrator could be a good parent, it isn't worth it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If the victim doesn't want to raise the child, adoption is available. I highly doubt circumstances will arises where the victim wants its perpetrator to raise the child or even have custody of it. Put the child in a home that is safe and happy, not one where its parent has a history of rape and assault. 

Remember, any contact at all between the victim and perp is pretty traumatizing, and I think the best argument that can be made for this is that it protects victims from more emotional distress.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, I am ready to sign this is the senate passes it. I'm not really concerned with the wishes of a convicted rapist, and I highly doubt any scenario will arise where the victim will request her perp take custody of the child, and even if this would occur, I think the state has a duty to protect that child from being sentenced to that fate.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sure, sure, I'm fine with that, shua.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't get to constitutional law for another week or so, so please don't ask me to analyze our constitution.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No, I don't think so. I'm ready for a final vote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Isn't this still unconstitutional?

Which part? Banning this at the federal level?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Isn't this still unconstitutional?

Which part? Banning this at the federal level?

Yes, the prohibition on regions making certain policies without a clear constitutional authority of the Senate in this area.  That and the fact that this looks suspiciously like a mandatory punishment.

I could see the argument where this may be unconstitutional, but I am willing to let someone challenge this in court. I'd argue that our goal of protecting our children outweighs anything else, but of course, I bet some disagree.

Maybe we could tie this to educational funding?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, Bore is correct. Look at the drinking age legislation in the US.... we tell states that they can make the drinking age to an age less than 21, but if they do, the federal government will withhold 10% of their funding for highways. The power of the purse is not unconstitutional in any way, and the Feds use it all the time to set national policy.

The punishment cannot be severe, like not responding to a 911 call, but it can be substantial. Withholding any emergency services is not comparable to withholding 10% of federal highway money. One basically coerces a state to follow suit and the other just gives them a strong incentive to do so. Coercion is, of course, unconstitutional.

I can see a scenario where this is unconstitutional, but to remedy it, all we'd need to do is tie it to funding, unless the Court ruled that this does not violate a fundamental right, like the right to custody of your child, if such exists. I am not going to divulge any deeper into this, because it can be argued either way, and I am not an AG nor a Court justice. I am just the President. What do I know?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I certainly don't think it's wrong. I think the first draft was constitutional as well, but I think there is less grounds to challenge this one in court over the last. Just trying to be safe...

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

x Duke

Let's hope this holds up!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I for one await the challenge by those pro-rapist elements to this humane and progressive law.

Oh don't worry, dear friend, I've studied so much law over the last month for the bar that I can act as our AG to defend victims from those who wish them harm! I stand ready!