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

[Deus Naturae]

Isn't this still unconstitutional?

[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?

[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.

[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.