W.A.R. Action Alert

WAR National is issuing an Action Alert requesting that you contact U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer AND your own senator. The Minority Leader has the ability to move the First Step Act to the full senate and your senator can support the bill with their vote.  

Schumer, Charles E.

(202) 224-6542

Contact: www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck

We prefer that you call his office and speak to a staffer. Ask that the senator move the First Step Act to the Senate floor. Of course, you can use your own words but here is an example of what you can say:

“By supporting the First Step Act, you are giving our families a chance at restoration. Our loved ones want to be contributing members of society as working taxpayers instead of behind bars at the cost of $26k to $46k per year per individual depending on the state. Please put partisan politics aside and back this legislation that can truly be a first step in much needed sweeping judicial and penal reform. Please consider all our families, including the 904,000 men, women and children (6, 8 and 10 years of age in some states) currently required to register as sex offenders. Per empirical research there is no reason to exclude them. 

Then click on the link below to locate your Congressional Senator in Washington D.C. and call them immediately. Thank you very much for your time.”

To determine your senator:


Select your state and the senators should pop-up and click on each to obtain their Washington D.C. phone number.

Call immediately and a staffer will answer. Advise of the following:

Tell the staffer your name, that you are a constituent, and request that they fully support the First Step Act. Then tell them what you told Senator Schumer’s staffer (in quotes above). 

We received the notification from a number of our partner advocacy groups about the first step act and how one senator is attempting to sabotage it using false information to deny registered citizens their fair chance to be included in the bill. Naturally the senator who is attempting to deny registered citizens and their family’s a affair chance is using antiquated and false information about re-offense rates, this is the same tactic that was used on the farm bill the attempt to deny registered citizens and their family members food stamps. This tactic is unconstitutional in that it violates the 14th amendment equal protection clause as well as the prohibition of special laws and bills of attainder. We agree with other advocacy organizations such as NARSOL, WAR, ACSOL, as well as all the state-based organizations. That this discrimination must stop. In our recent article /blog/2018/09/29/action-alert-the-fight-to-remove-the-2018-farm-bills-ban-on-registered-citizens-from-snap.html on SOSEN we pointed out the need for this type of action against the Act of 2018 (HR 2, or simply known as “The Farm Bill”) now once again we have a legislator attempting to deny a disfavored group access to a government benefit based on the high re-offense mythology. There is no high re-offense rate for people on the registry the overall re-offense rate in any given year is less than 1% and the number of people on the registry involved in the new sex crime is also less than 1% interestingly law enforcement who has approximately the same number of people 900,000 in their ranks are responsible for 3% of the new sex crimes in any given year. Before you make a phone call I suggest you educate yourself on the fact that there is no high re-offense rate and use that as another talking point to the legislative staffers a good starting point is one of our articles


Another important point is that this discrimination will be challenged in the United States Courts and those courts have has already spoken before about discrimination so It is important to also remind our legislators that SCOTUS has already established that unpopular groups of persons cannot be excluded from SNAP without a valid reason and I doubt that the courts would see a re-offense rate of less than 1% as a valid reason.

Thus, if it is to be sustained, the challenged classification must rationally further some legitimate governmental interest other than those specifically stated in the congressional “declaration of policy.” Regrettably, there is little legislative history to illuminate the purposes of the 1971 amendment of 3 (e). 6 The legislative history that does exist, however, indicates that that amendment was intended to prevent so-called ‘hippies’ and ‘hippie communes’ from participating in the food stamp program. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1793, p. 8; 116 Cong. Rec. 44439 (1970) (Sen. Holland). The challenged classification clearly cannot be sustained by reference to this congressional purpose. For if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest. As a result, ‘[a] purpose to discriminate against hippies cannot, in and of itself and without reference to [some independent] considerations in the [413 U.S. 528, 535] public interest, justify the 1971 amendment.’ 345 F. Supp., at 314 n. 11.”i

Oyez.org summarizes the Moreno case as follows:

In a 7-2 decision, the Court upheld the District Court and maintained that amended Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment in creating two types of households – one in which all members were related and one in which at least one member was unrelated. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., writing for the majority, acknowledged the interest of Congress in preventing abuse of the Food Stamp program. However, the statute did not fulfill Congress’ stated purpose of preventing ‘hippies’ and ‘hippie communes’ from enrolling the food stamp program. Additionally, there existed other measures within the Food Stamp Act that were specifically aimed at preventing abuse of the program. Since the statute ‘simply does not operate so as rationally to further the prevention of fraud,’ the distinction between households with related members and households with unrelated members did not further the state interest and therefore violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

Also noteworthy, this act would violate the US Constitution’s ban legislative bills of attainder: in federal law under Article I, Section 9, and in state law under Article I, Section 10. (For those who don’t know what a bill of attainder is, it is defined as “A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial




7 comments for “W.A.R. Action Alert

  1. Scott
    November 30, 2018 at 12:23 pm

    Charles “Chuck” Schumer is what they call a career politician. He has been serving NY for many years and he obviously has run out of things to do that are considered equal to all. When a person starts to prey on those who are less than fortunate or have fallen on hard times, it’s time they are voted out of their position. we have to weigh the differences of whether we have equal rights VS unequal rights.

  2. Tim
    December 6, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    The entire scheme was about the database and government use thereof. If a party has such they can and do use it for political cover. Schumer just this year announced the opening of FBI databases for general use by the public. The moved paved the way for firms to produce facial recognition hardware that will scan the public for possible wrongdoers, those with warrants etc. There is profit driving the move and you can bet those behind it will benefit through profit.

  3. Scott
    December 9, 2018 at 4:25 pm

    the only question i always wondered was, Since the registry was enacted has the numbers of sex offenses dropped and what were the percentage numbers Then compared to Now?? Has the registry decreased the numbers due to awareness or have the numbers increased??

    • Will Bassler
      December 10, 2018 at 12:54 pm

      In an attempt to answer your question I would have to say that the majority of the studies that have looked into this that found that the registry did not reduce the number of new sex crime and on top of that it did not reduce the number of repeat sex crimes in fact in the Nebraska study it show that since the implementation of AWA that there has been a slight increase. An interesting point that would also be important here is the effectiveness of forcing people into treatment programs and its effect on the overall recidivism of people that have to go through it studies have shown that forced behavior modification increases recidivism. So the steps that the government has taken to reduce recidivism have not worked and the steps of the governor has taken to reduce new re-offenses has not worked and in the process it has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives both of the offenders and their family members.

      • Scott
        December 11, 2018 at 9:21 am

        WOW, I spent a lot of money on programming mandated by the court where i am from and to hear this, it makes me think all the money i spent to pay for this program was a total waste of money. However, i do believe what i was in opened up a lot of awareness for myself and the damage that was caused. However, i don’t believe any program is a cure all for anyone. It basically comes down to the individuals choices and along with those who can help be their per sae accountability partner.

        We are all accountable to one another and if everyone just “helped” each other during our mental health moments and times of despair or hard ships I think this would be an almost perfect world. Nobody helps each other unless it’s a “Whats in it for me” mentality.

        • Timothy
          December 13, 2018 at 8:11 pm

          The basis for SOR was centered on the fallacy that sex offenders do not have the ability learn and therefore are highly likely to reoffend. It certainly presumes future bad acts. Humans can learn but some choose not to or lack the mental capacity or compulsive ailment. This is the dehumanization experience in a nut shell.

          If the presumption were true there could be no rational for justice in the first place as nothing could be gained.

          I was not present the day I was given the obligation to register.

          • Scott
            December 19, 2018 at 6:39 pm

            That is because the majority of mentalities are in the thinking of Once a ??? always a ???.

Comments are closed.