Through our elected representatives efforts, they have legally created a class of people and that class is registered citizens. What does this mean as far as our judicial system is concerned. It means that this group of people are now able to stand on the same ground to fight their battles as anyone else, that is been discriminated against because of race, color, creed, religious views, disabilities, or ethnic background. One of the things to realize is that denying this group of citizens the ability to travel freely to use public facilities to choose where to live or to denying them work is in fact a form of segregation. No different than denying Members of a ethnic group from living in certain communities using publicly funded facilities or services. Make no mistake denying any group of people the ability to live or work where ever they choose or the use of public facilities that are available to everyone else. Is a form of segregation no matter what some may use as an excuse for the justification of the segregation.
The job of a politician is to uphold the Constitution’s of both the state they represent, and our federal government. They take an oath to do this, but how many of these politicians today realize that the primary reason for our Constitution is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights; Not the majority’s rights, and not the government’s rights to exist. Our founding fathers recognized the possibility of the government’s growing in power to such a point that individual freedoms would be lost. That is why on the 4 March 1789. They added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution guaranteeing individual freedoms to the people in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government’s powers. Today the people holding government offices rather elected or Employed have shown a total disregard for those individual rights. As our founding fathers looked down upon this country I’m quite sure that they have tears in their eyes because of the loss of so many individual rights that they fought so hard to establish.
How many laws have been passed in the last 100 years that have been found by our court systems to violate the principles of our Federal and State Constitutions? For example the Jim Crow laws or laws passed in the McCarthy era as well as laws requiring businesses to implement unneeded measures, increasing the cost of goods and driving some companies out of business. Consider the cost of implementing those unconstitutional laws, and the costs of defending them in court only to have them proven to be unconstitutional. Now add in the cost of removing the law and the mechanism that they created and you soon realize that these mistakes have cost us the taxpayers billions of dollars. Also consider the cost in taxpayers dollars and an individuals pain Because public employees have stepped outside the boundaries of the laws designed to protect individuals rights.
As much as we may dislike a group of people. If we want our constitutional rights protected, then we have to also protect theirs I’m quite sure anyone reading this has in some way felt that their rights have been stepped upon by our existing government, whose representatives have given in to lobbyists and passed laws that have taken away our individual freedoms We as Americans like to say that the least of our people has the same freedoms as everyone else in this country. That is no longer true we as a country have always had bigots and we have allowed ourselves to follow them, then later been ashamed of our actions. Three of the most obvious examples are the way we treated blacks then what we did to the Japanese Americans during World War II And of course what happened to people black listed during the McCarthy Era. Early in the 20th century
The Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. it took nearly 50 years to overturn these bigoted laws that took away America’s rights. the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.
Along with Jim Crow laws, by which the state compelled segregation of the races, private parties such as businesses, political parties and unions created their own Jim Crow arrangements, barring Disfavored citizens from buying homes in certain neighborhoods, from shopping or working in certain stores, from working at certain trades, etc. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution.The Supreme Court outlawed some forms of private discrimination in Shelley v. Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948) which it held that restrictive covenants that barred sale of homes to blacks or Jews or Asians were unconstitutional, because they represented state-sponsored discrimination, in that they were only effective if the courts enforced them.
Are such laws creating a caste systems really acceptable under our Constitution U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965), U.S. v. Lovett 328 U.S. 303 (1946)[, and In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) establish bills of pains and penalties as punishment without trial, and included within the prohibitions of bills of attainder. The precedent that best reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867). It states, “A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.”
U.S. v. Lovett was a case historically relevant It states: “Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are ‘bills of attainder’ prohibited under this clause. It would seem that from this forcing people to Register and have the community notified would fall into that category.
.Further insight comes from examining several questions. Are bills of attainder and ex post facto laws disjunctive, is one a subset of the other, or do they overlap partially but not completely? Clearly, ex post facto laws are bills of attainder when they apply to the class of convicted persons and operate to increase the penalty, or likelihood of penalty, for them. Therefore, a class of persons convicted of something can be a suspect class for which, if a legislative act imposes a penalty on them, either after sentence is passed, or not as part of the sentence, that act is a bill of attainder.
Does it have to be a legislative act to be a bill of attainder or ex post facto law? No. Executive acts, purportedly under color of authority of a legislative act, such as regulations or administrative actions, can have the effect of a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, and therefore the act which authorizes the executive action, to the extent it authorizes that executive action, is a bill of attainder, and if the effect is retroactive, an ex post facto law. Many states have a prohibition against passing what is referred to as Special Laws. These are laws, rules and regulations that single out individuals or groups and treat them differently than others in the state or community Are in violation of special laws. Passage of residency restrictions would most definitely fall under a violation of the prohibition Against special laws.
The discussion during the Federal Convention limited bills of attainder and ex post facto laws to criminal disablements, but examined more carefully, they are actually just a complementary way to restate the requirement for due process in the Fifth Amendment, and include vested property as well as life and liberty. The Fifth Amendment says constitutional rights may only be deprived by judicial due process, and the prohibitions are against doing that by legislative process or executive process not based on a court order. Together, they emphasize that any disablement of a constitutional right must be by order of a court of competent jurisdiction upon petition and proof under due process protections of the rights of the defendant.
Nearly 150 years ago in Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US 277 (1867), the Supreme Court struck a Missouri statute that required, among other persons, members of the clergy to swear a loyalty oath that they had not supported the government of the rebellion, lest they be forbidden from working. Because many citizens of Missouri were loyal to the Confederacy, they could not make such an attestation, lest they be subject to imprisonment for perjury. Though the language of the opinion does not help us clarify the question of “how to recognize a bill of attainder,” the Court held that the Missouri law acted as an unconstitutional bill of attainder and wrote: “A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment”
There are ways to fight and stop these registration laws. Americans must come to realize how onerous these laws are. That they are insidiously taking away in very small bits and pieces everyone’s rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Rights people have fought, bled and died for. If you believe in this country and what it stands for, the time is now to Stop this madness and bring back all Americans rights before this country turns into another Nazi Germany.
Penalties have to relate to the underlying crime…. http://online.wsj.com/article/AP24d843af7f4146a78a475212daeb0d1d.html
CINCINNATI — A judge improperly barred a convicted sex offender from viewing pornography, accessing the Internet and using the telephone for sex services, as well as being around his own four children a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. The opinion, written by Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., also said that the restrictions had nothing to do with Doyle’s underlying crime — failing to register as a sex offender.
We have the court saying that restrictions unrelated to the crime are unconstitutional. And if that is so for the court, then it would also follow through then it is unconstitutional for the parole and probation department to impose them . It would also follow that it is unconstitutional to pass laws imposing them by state and city officials For example residency restrictions against a person Who is involved in child pornography or for that matter. A person involved in incest. Residency restrictions would only seem to apply to people who were strangers to the victim.
Remember the recent Supreme Court decision http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/03/supreme-court-rules-for-pro-se-prisoner-in-sovereign-immunity-case.php That basically said that any official of the government, who steps outside his legal boundaries can bring about a suit against the organization that he represents. In other words, if the parole officer steps outside his boundaries in ordering something that is unrelated to the crime. Then not only he can be sued. But all the organizations that he represents all the way up through the state Or federal government.
Remember having a restriction on a person is denying them a portion of their liberty. And if it is done without proper need to do so. Then it opens up the door for a constitutional tort and by filing a USC 1983 action. The minimum damages that you can receive $10,000 per defendant and organization. Let’s say it was a parole officer who authorized these restrictions that would mean that you could sue the parole officer, his supervisor, their local department, the supervisor for the local department at the state level, the state level department,all the way up through the governor of the state whose responsibility is for all departments under him and you can sue them in both their personal capacity and their official capacity. Easily running the damages up to a couple hundred thousand dollars.
The next thing is, can public officials be held Criminally accountable for their actions in passing these laws rules or regulations that are violating the constitutional rights of a group of people. The answer to that is yes, they can be fined and imprisoned for violating the constitutional rights of individuals this falls under
title 18 USC section 241
conspiracy against rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.