You take your revenue from that state and give it to a state where that listens a little better. What, you think that the FEDERAL government will listen better? Get a movement together (or join one that's already in your area that you agree with) and have the politicians that "refuse" to fix the problem removed from power.
I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.
How is playing games with federal funding protecting a child from a predator? And that only makes the feds look like the bad guy because the State just screams about all the hungry children that are being hurt by the funding withdrawal, and more time wasted on BS while the problem goes unsolved.
I think that the federal government overstepped in the RK case. From what I understand, he got what he deserved, and the cops were charged with crimes when they should not have been. But that is a subjective view and not really the point of the argument.
The Federal government does have some jurisdiction over some things, but they shouldn't be brought into what should be considered state matters. If they want a federal law, let them go through the proper process and get an amendment passed.
RK just got what he deserved? He was certainly an azzhole, but these cops are the representation of the law, they should not be acting like that. You don't want the Government to have the power to hold pedophiles but at the same time you want cops to be able to beat the crap out of people just because they don't like them?
Don't you think that goes against a few of our rights there buddy? Seems to me your don't really believe in the constitution if you think cops should behave in such ways and not be punnished.
I've stated my argument to this. If the government wants to take prosecution of this crime over, let them do it the proper way. Not just on a whim.
Rehabilitating pedo's does not work, change the laws. But don't give the government the power to change the punishment as their little heart desires without following the proper procedures.
As I said before, this is not a problem if the States step up and do their part, as far as I am concerned they are following the will of the people.
yes... a whim.. I'm pretty sure I spelled it right... I really appreciate how you twist words and context. You're a master, it's almost like art? You should go to work as a spin doctor for one of the parties.
Whim implies a rushed and impulse act, this is not either, I questioned your use of an obviously incorrect word to describe the issue in question.
Regardless of what the law that is broken is, there is a prescribed punishment. Once someone has met the conditions of punishment, that punishment should be over. Regardless of the law broken.
And the punnishment at State level for a black who drank from a whites only water fountain was very severe at one time, but the Federal Government had to force the States to remove laws like that. States are not supposed to be completely seperate as if they are a Nation of their own, when they are messing up, someone must act, in this case it is the Federal Government.
As I said before, what if the State makes child molesting legal? You never said that would be wrong, you put the blame on the parents and said they should be forced to move away and I don't agree. If the States refuse to be reasonable, then they also force a reaction from the Federal Government.
The scale of the punishment for the crime is irrelevant... My point is that if you start allowing the WHIM of the government to change punishments for breaking a law without following proper process, what says they can't change the punishment for any crime on a whim. It wasn't over board at all. In fact I would argue that it is dead on. I'm pointing out that once you give that power to government, it's a real bitch to get back. And if you start on that slippery slope, you're bound to fall, hard and fast. You're asking for the government to start taking over, one insignificant thing at the time. Before long, they'll start with bigger things. Read this all very carefully, even you can see that I'm probably pretty correct.
Irrelivent? I don't think so, to me the severity of the problem is what determines how we should allocate our resources to a problem.
In this case the problem is large enough to require action. This action is only required because of the States who refuse to act.
I don't believe protecting children from these kinds of monsters is insignificant.
So you say screw states rights, let's let the government take over and run the whole show. Take into consideration that this does not ONLY effect this one law, this will effect all future laws as well. That's how it works. State laws are state laws for a reason. Federal laws are federal laws for a reason. There are loopholes in every case, but don't let the government take over something without following the proper channels.
Should I go into the slippery slope thing again?
If there is a slippery slope it is caused by the States themselves who knowingly refuse to fix a problem and that direct refusal forces the hand of the Federal Government to act where the States refuse to act.
I don't say 'screw States rights', I say the States had every opportunity to fix this problem and failed, and that failure has forced the Federal Government to try and help in a problem caused by the States.
How is this 'naive'? I'm not demanding anything except that the government follow the laws.
What you don't get is that this is not entirely about pedophiles... this is about the government overstepping boundaries and taking over something that they have no business doing and have no right to take over.
If the crime were shoplifting, would your position be different?
How about murder?
How about if it were a crime to kill someone when defending yourself or your home... Would you feel differently then?
You're climbing up a slippery slope TJ, and I'm just making sure you see that...
And still you refuse to admit that what you want means more child victims. This is the result of letting them free, if you can't at least be honest and admit that then I know your not taking this seriously.
I would say the same thing if the States were refusing to deal with crimes like murder, why let people get away with crimes, or get a slap on the wrist just because the States refuse to act or are too incompetent to act?
Also consider victims like Mary Jo Kopechne where there are lwas on the books and still the State refuses to enforce them, in this case because of political clout.
That is exactly NOT the question. This vote was looked at completely objectively by Clarence Thomas. He wasn't looking at it like it was pedo, or murderer, or shoplifter. He made his vote based on the constitutionality of it and based on the lawfulness of it. And he made the right choice.
We can't always look at things from the point of view during those times, do you think at the time the Constitution was written they thought child molesters would go unpunnished in society? In their day the community would drag the molester off and kill him while the local law would pretend to not even notice the guy was no longer around. If you want to honor those times and beliefs then I am all for that my friend, but if you say that times have changed then we have to accept other changes as well.
If you want to talk about pedos, I agree with you. I think they are scum of the earth, and they don't deserve to breath the same air that everyone else does. I personally think that convicted pedophiles should be castrated and humiliated (in the most cruel and unusual way possible) and eventually be put to death in a very painful slow way. But this isn't about pedophiles... It's about changing laws on a whim or following proper process.
So to stand on principle, you want pedophiles released so they can molest children some more?
How do we preserve freedoms in one way, and condemn a child to be molested to pay for those freedoms? I'm sorry, but our system was never intended to be manipulated in such ways to transofrm the peaceful masses into victims and to instead protect the criminals. We need to look past the words and see the intent of our founding fathers based on how the world worked at the time they created things like the Constitution.
What your asking for is a pervision of law where we stake out our children as victims to the wolves to serve an invisible master based on an incorrect view of how laws were intended to function in America. Our laws were intended to protect the innocent, what your advocating is screw the innocent and protect the criminal.
no... it's not. You're supporting government growth and their gaining of power.
As I said before, the Government can already kill you "for cause", can't get any more power then that, the question here is the application of that power and under what terms it is reasonable to apply it.
By refusing to deal with this problem, the States are actually the ones who force the Federal Government to act.
So you just want the pedos held for another 20 days... or 10 years? You don't want something more done? That's kind of a band-aid on the situation, no? Government growth with no real benefits... They eventually get out... And what have you given up for that short amount of time that makes you feel so good? You've given up the moral authority to do the right thing every time. [sarcasm]Bravo...[/sarcasm]
I don't see anything moral about letting them go and put them on the streets one day earlier than we must. That one extra day may save one child from attack, and I would call that a huge victory.
Sure I want more, but at the same time I will not turn my back on any improvement, no matter how small, because that one improvement represents a lot of protected children.
If this is your main point, then you've missed the entire point of the argument or the thread. It's about the rule of law, and following that law, without making up new rules as you go along (without following the law).
It really has less to do with pedos than it does my point above. Pedo's just happen to be the subject of the government's whim.
No, your missing the point of how a law is created and what it is "supposed" to represent.
Laws are the written moral values of society (in general). Almost all of society wants these monsters to never have access to a child again, but our elected officials allow tiny segments of the PC crowd to muddy the waters of the debate and block change. The system has been perverted to protect the criminals, and as long as the system is so corrupt, there will be huge gaps that "NEED" to be filled.
I have said over and over again that I would be glad if the States would step up, but if the States refuse, then the problem still exists, and I want that problem fixed.
When there are enough people that organize and request change of the government, they will change. Look the the coming elections for the proof of this.
And while we are waiting for the change great harms like the healthcare law happen.
In this case the great harm is the many children who pay the price for what you want to happen.
