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

[bore]

Aye

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

[bore]

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."

We're not allowed to command them to do something but, from a legal point of view we wouldn't be commanding them to do something, we'd just be providing an incentive to do it.

The power of the purse has a long history and is certainly not unconstitutional, and I don't see how this would be any different.

[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.

[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.

[bore]

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

[bore]

Aye