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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Again, we can't assume that in all cases the victim either has or wants custody,  esp. since this bill was just broadened to be gender neutral.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's not standard that a criminal, even of violent crime, is completely barred from having custody of a child at the end of their sentence no matter the circumstance, so I don't understand why the blanket rule here, rather than allowing for the best interest of the victim and the child in each case. And I still haven't heard the constitutional authority for this.

But okay, can we at least allow a woman convicted of rape the ability to arrange an adoptive home for the child, if no one else seeks custody?  Or is the child consigned in such a case to be ward of the state?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

NAY

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

That's like the police saying "We can't search your house without a warrant, but if you don't let us in we won't respond if you ever call 911."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.   

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think custody should be based on what is in the best interest of the children, and in the case of rape, on the rights of the victim.  There should be laws that strongly protect the rights of the victim in this area and the relationship between the victim and the child where such exists, but we also have family courts for a reason to look at the specifics of a case. 

I also think we should follow the Constitution and the Constitution simply doesn't give us the authority to do this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Abstain