Funny how ex post facto was no problem with everyday America when the Adam Walsh Act was passed, but now considered terribly "unconstitutional" when applied to AIG ?
Reaching back retroactively to snatch back what's left of someone's reputation to fill the public registries with those who have paid their debt to society is somehow okay, but to snatch back a bonus specified in a contract, that's unthinkable, unconstitutional and quite ironic.
Repeal the Adam Walsh Act.
13 comments:
I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw that on CNN.. Funny how that works out. When Fat Cat business friends are affected, Congress tends to forget about Civil versus Criminal rights?
What is even funnier is that they fail to mention WHAT law they refer to as far as not being able to do it... Makes me wonder if the Lege knows something that they don't want to say in as far as the Registry is concerned...
In a way, the Constitution is used sort of like how some use the Bible...take a verse out of context and twist the crap out of the true meaning.
In the case of AIG, the way ex post facto is cited doesn't even appear applicable...?
Yet if the citation of ex post facto is twisted enough through repetition, then it must be true.
The crowd at the AWA hearings seemed to know a bit or two about what the subject... I bet they are having a real Scooby Doo "rut-roh" moment over this who thing.
The more exposure and education about ex post the better...will be hard to justify why it is okay for one group (AIG) and not for others (AWA).
:)
The only idea I would have as defenseable is that you are desling with ex-criminals on one hand, and on upstanding (heh) business people on the other.. Other than that, I think it is a smoke screen either way.
Either the Constitution is for all of us or throw it the hell away....
Sunny
Your reference to Scripture and Constitution picking is what I refer to cafeteria type application. Because, just like a cafeteria you pick and choose what you'd like to ingest for yourself and apply it to your own diet, but if you see someone who "you" believe should not be ingesting the same, for whatever reason, well you apply "your" principal of choosing towards them as well. Instead of seeing it as it truly applies to all people at all times, whether a Biblical verse or the US Constitution.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
I certainly do. I like your analogy.
Okay everyone is catching on. If you ever watch comedy central there is a bill burr and also another guy who have done routines around sex offenders. Not exactly perfect but, nonetheless, this is an indication that people ARE catching on to how this is changing our lives and who we ARE ALL DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
By the way .. the corporations are running america. THAT is the problem. We need to take away their personhood. They should NOT have civil rights.
They are NOT HUMAN.
those civil rights were for WE THE PEOPLE.
NOT who we are all directly effected but HOW we are all directly effected. my bad.
hey s, I forgot to get back with you .. did you ever find out who that reporter was from that article??
No rush but he is purportedly from OUR area of florida...
they originally found that the registry's (not the awa) were constitutional due to them being civil law not criminal law ,now when you look at the constitution it says no law shall be made that is ex post... it doesn't say hay if it's a civil law it's ok, it says no law period. a fact not raised by any lawyer to date. D
So, with the constitutional ruling regarding the registry under the belt, Congress moved forward with the AWA, which is about notification in the retroactive sense, reaching back and including many who would otherwise not be included.
The old foot in the door scheme...
I can't seem to find the article, voxy...:(
I'm sorry if this takes the thread off track but here's the link, sunny
and
ANONYMOUS>>> EXCELLENT POINT.
There HAS to be a civil rights attorney who will take this to court. I don't have much faith in southern poverty law center. They seem to focus more on racial issues. Could just be ME, maybe I misunderstood some communication that we had.
There are people who are concerned about this matter. Why not an attorney to be found??
Post a Comment