"TERRORIST HATER" is a stupid fuck!

[TerroristHater]

You total dumbass. Remember it was me who first mentioned that case? That case was not decided on 1st Amendment grounds. It does not prove your argument. Particularly when similar laws have been upheld. Learn how to read, ADHD boy.

 

Now the Florida law may well be overturned based on the major reason the Iowa law was overturned. The definition of ex post facto law prohibited in Article I Sec 9.

 

 

 

Of course, nothing under a ruling due to the ex post facto situation prevents future sex offenders from being required to meet residency requirements. ADHD boy has proven in this thread he is mentally disabled. I suspect it is just plain stupidity.

 

Get some new material. Calling me "ADHD Boy" only makes you look like a total asshole.

 

I bet you don't even know what "Ex Post Facto" means.

[TerroristHater]

If that person is a preist or a pastor I would hope their respictive churches would eb=nd that pretty quick!!!!!!! That a really dumbass example BTW Grasping at straws now I see

 

Just because I beat you at your own game doesn't make it dumb.

[TerroristHater]

Get over yourself kid!!! And while you are at it grow a few new layers of skin, you need em!

 

 

I am OLDER then you are. So DO NOT call me kid.

 

numbnuts

[TerroristHater]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

And what is there about not letting peodophiles live near schools and churches goes against the 1st amendmant?

 

 

Wait WTF were we arguing about LOL

 

 

I just thought of something.... the only person here who keeps talking about pedophiles is MRIH.

 

I mentioned Sex Offenders in general and he AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED that I was talking about pedophiles. LOL

 

I wasn't and I never was... not directly anyway

 

When this topic started I was talking about sex offenders in gerenal.

 

LOL

 

Oh well.

 

Enough of this argument.

[tizz]

OK then revise the question and replace "Peodophile" with "sex offender" and attempt an answer

[TerroristHater]

OK then revise the question and replace "Peodophile" with "sex offender" and attempt an answer

 

The original question addressed "Sex Offenders" in general. I never broke it down to individual groups except to answer MRIH's messages. I think just misunderstood what I was saying.

 

Oh well.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

The original question addressed "Sex Offenders" in general. I never broke it down to individual groups except to answer MRIH's messages. I think just misunderstood what I was saying.

 

Oh well.

It is obvious to all by now that you can't answer it!

[hugo]

Get some new material. Calling me "ADHD Boy" only makes you look like a total asshole.

 

I bet you don't even know what "Ex Post Facto" means.

 

About as good as you can expect from ADHD boy. Has proven himself a bleeping moron. He needs to actually read the Constitution sometime.

[TerroristHater]

About as good as you can expect from ADHD boy. Has proven himself a bleeping moron. He needs to actually read the Constitution sometime.

 

You and your rhetoric are old.

 

Kindly fuck off

[TerroristHater]

It is obvious to all by now that you can't answer it!

 

I already answered it. Dumbass. Scroll back and READ

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I already answered it. Dumbass. Scroll back and READ

No you did not! you mindless moron! I have asked it everyother post and you still refuse to answer it. Here it is again for your ADHD retarded brain can see...

Why do 1st ammendment rights remain while other rights are denied a convicted felon?

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I went to high school with a dude that had to register as a sex offender becuse he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend (he was 18 at the time and a senior). Her mom, who was an alcoholic cunt, made sure he got arrested and because of her my friend is now a registered sex offender. That was years ago, but he still carries that ridiculous fucking stigma with him.

 

For some reason I wasn't seeing this thread and I missed out so let me catch up if you will. Thanks.

 

TH, would you like a little cheese with that whine?

 

Let's look at the facts as you state them.

 

1. Your "friend was 18 years old and quite aware of his status as an "adult" cough .

 

2. His girlfriend was 16, a "minor" of which he was well aware of.

 

3. His dick was hard and therefore his brain was disengaged and he banged the 16 year old, a crime of which he was well aware of.

 

4. Somehow, the crime was revealed to the parent of the girl, specifically the mother.

 

5. The mother prosecutes your friend for his crime, and because she did so, she is a cunt in your eyes.

 

6. Your friend, through his own very poor choice, not only fucked a minor girl, but then, somehow let that little bit of information get out. I would suspect that the girl told on him after she got pissed at him for something he did or did not do. Now your friend is a registered sex offender and do you know something...

 

HE FUCKING SHOULD BE!

 

Let me give you a little clue here asswipe. One word. Integrity. It's a little word with a HUGE meaning and your friend fucking forgot it completely just so he could let loose a sperm wad! What was the problem, right hand wasn

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Another good point CES... TH's argument breaks down from EVERY angle!

[tizz]

TH so why haven't you answered my question about convicted sex offenders and the first amendment. I even posted teh amendment so it would be easy for you

[jokersarewild]

Well, if your friend has such problems, TH, castrate him

[jokersarewild]

The constitution doesn't change. EVER. NOBODY LOSES THIER 1st Amendment rights.

 

A. Point one is wrong...cough AMENDMENTS cough.

 

B. Point 2 is correct, so far. We can AMEND AMENDMENTS, you see. In fact, the CONSTITUTION was changed to put in the FREEDOM OF SPEECH part. Just thought I would tell you. Seeing as you have a hard time grasping things...

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Sex crimes are illegal (as they should be) but they are not considered a constitutional matter. I respect your opinions, but there certain inalienable rights EVERY American is entitled to have no matter their status.

 

Criminals in general lose some of thier rights, but they do not lose all of them. They still have the right to practice whatever religon they chose. The government of Florida does not have the right to interfear in that right, which is exactly what they have done.

 

Don't you understand that when the government takes away the liberties of one class they take them away from all classes?

 

What Osceola, Florida has done is trade liberty for a little temporary saftey. Exactly how many sex offenders do you think are going to follow this rule anyway?

 

I will not see a group of Floridian fucksticks trade the liberty I fought to protect for some stupid mesure of mostly non-existant temporary saftey.

 

-TH

 

First off, you keep twisting the truth. Let's go back and review what the law in St. Cloud in Osceola County, Florida, really is instead of what you prevert it into.

 

"The ordinance first was presented at the City Council's meeting on July 24 and stipulates that offenders must live at least 2,500 feet from schools, public parks, day-care centers, playgrounds, churches or any other place of religious assembly.

 

Currently, state law mandates that offenders may not live closer than 1,000 feet from these places. St. Cloud joins a host of other Central Florida cities that have passed more restrictive measures."

 

This law prevents nobody from going to a church; it prevents living within 2500 feet of one. It does not prevent a convicted sex offender from practicing any religion or religious worship in a church.

 

Your statements to the contrary, are simply wrong. Please get your facts straight.

 

Speaking of facts...you sure are confused.

 

The constitution guarantees no "inalienable rights" whatsoever. None. Just for clarification also, the term is UNALIENABLE and it does not exist in the Constitution.

 

In fact, the term is from THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and refers to "moral rights" not legal rights and is used in the justification of labeling King George III of England, a despotic tyrant to provide justification for the colonies declaration of separation from England.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Constitutional law, American Colonial History, and the study thereof is my absolute favorite hobby and I welcome any educated debate you have on this but you'll have to drop the childish tantrums and rectify your incorrect statements if you wish to have any credibility.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Different rules for criminals and non-criminals? Not only is it legal, it's already been upheld in the US Supreme Court.

 

In United States v. Knights, one of its last opinions of 2001, the Supreme Court addressed the rights of probationers - convicted criminals whose sentence involves release into the community - to be free from searches that would surely be illegal if aimed at you or me. The opinion, in which the Court approved the search of a probationer's home on a far lower standard of suspicion than applies to the rest of us, points up the wisdom of remembering that probationary sentences are meant to be punishment, and not simply a get out of jail free card.

 

The Crimes of Mark Knights

 

Mark Knights had been convicted of a drug offense and sentenced to a term of probation. A condition of his sentence was his agreement to submit his "person, property, place of residence" - essentially everything he controlled - to search at any time. Knights acknowledged the condition by his signature.

 

Within a week of Knights' sentencing, a Pacific Gas and Electric transformer near Knights' home in Napa Valley, California was set on fire, causing over $1 million worth of damage. Knights had a long running feud with PG&E - they'd cut off his power for non-payment and filed a theft-of-service complaint against him - and local detectives noticed that other acts of vandalism at PG&E facilities nearby coincided with the various court dates in the company's proceedings against Knights.

 

Some gumshoe work around Knight's home and car revealed further grounds for suspicion, including what looked like Molotov cocktails and a brass lock that had been removed during the earlier arson at the PG&E facility. The local sheriff's office, aware of the terms of Knight's probation, decided to search his house without first getting a warrant. The search turned up a veritable arsenal, and the brass locks were indeed from the burned transformer. Knights was subsequently indicted on multiple charges stemming from the fire and his possession of explosives and ammunition.

 

Knights moved to suppress eveything the police found at his home, on the ground that the search was not intended to monitor his compliance with his probation, and therefore could not be justified by reference to the conditions of that probation.

 

The Fourth Amendment protects us against searches that are "unreasonable." Starting from that one vacuous word, the courts have fashioned a complex set of rules to guide the police in the protean circumstances calling for searches. When it comes to searching your home, those rules require two things: that the police have "probable cause" to believe they'll find evidence of a crime inside, and that the police get a judge to signal his agreement by signing a search warrant.

 

A unanimous Supreme Court held that these rules were properly suspended in Knights' case. Because he was a probationer, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, the police could search Knights' residence without a warrant and with nothing more than reasonable suspicion.

[TerroristHater]

No you did not! you mindless moron! I have asked it everyother post and you still refuse to answer it. Here it is again for your ADHD retarded brain can see...

Why do 1st ammendment rights remain while other rights are denied a convicted felon?

 

 

Here we go again....

 

I DID ANSWER THIS ALREADY, however, I will do so again.

 

There are a number of rights, specifcially those of the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendments, which are gaurunteed to EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN and are INALIENABLE. These rights, althouth they originally only applied to the federal government, are now universal because of the 14th Amendment.

 

The following text "The Bill of Rights is "true for all men and all times" -- meaning that it's as valid and necessary today as when it was written." came directly from the Constitution.

 

The Bill of Rights (The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution) specifically states that " The Bill of Rights is our property, collectively and individually, not the government's. It may not be interpreted away, amended, or repealed, wholly or in part, without negating the entire Constitution from which government derives its authority. In short, if the heirs of the Federalists renege (as they have with increasing frequency and brutality) on any part of their bargain with us, the heirs of the Anti-Federalists, then the whole deal is off." As such, some states still allow felons to own firearms and some states allow felons to vote. (This was a new one on me)

 

This text specifically states that these rights are the property of the PEOPLE NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, the government CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY.

 

 

Article 10 of the Preambles of the Constitution specifically states "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

THIS IS WHY THE STATES CANNOT MAKE LAWS WHICH BAR PEOPLE FROM LIVING IN SPECIFIC AREAS.

THE MAIN REASON WHY PEOPLE, EVEN CONVICTS, DO NOT LOSE THIER 1st Amendment rights EVER for ANY reason is found in the 14th Amendment, which states:

 

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state(this includes the federal government) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; <---- THIS PART OF THE REASON WHY THE PROTECTION PROVIDED BY THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY... EVEN AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF A FELONY.

 

 

; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. <----- THIS IS WHY THOSE LAWS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

 

I hope this makes it clear.

 

-TH

 

 

 

 

[TerroristHater]

First off, you keep twisting the truth. Let's go back and review what the law in St. Cloud in Osceola County, Florida, really is instead of what you prevert it into.

 

"The ordinance first was presented at the City Council's meeting on July 24 and stipulates that offenders must live at least 2,500 feet from schools, public parks, day-care centers, playgrounds, churches or any other place of religious assembly.

 

Currently, state law mandates that offenders may not live closer than 1,000 feet from these places. St. Cloud joins a host of other Central Florida cities that have passed more restrictive measures."

 

This law prevents nobody from going to a church; it prevents living within 2500 feet of one. It does not prevent a convicted sex offender from practicing any religion or religious worship in a church.

 

Your statements to the contrary, are simply wrong. Please get your facts straight.

 

Speaking of facts...you sure are confused.

 

The constitution guarantees no "inalienable rights" whatsoever. None. Just for clarification also, the term is UNALIENABLE and it does not exist in the Constitution.

 

In fact, the term is from THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and refers to "moral rights" not legal rights and is used in the justification of labeling King George III of England, a despotic tyrant to provide justification for the colonies declaration of separation from England.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Constitutional law, American Colonial History, and the study thereof is my absolute favorite hobby and I welcome any educated debate you have on this but you'll have to drop the childish tantrums and rectify your incorrect statements if you wish to have any credibility.

 

Fair enough

 

It will be a pleasure to discuss this with you.

 

 

I stand partially corrected.

 

I still firmly believe that convicts keep thier 1st Ammendment rights.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Fair enough

 

It will be a pleasure to discuss this with you.

 

 

I stand partially corrected.

CES, has said nothing that was not already explained to your denseness several times over! Are you "just now" getting it? You are stupider than I gave you credit for.

 

No offense CES, this is really more of a testimony to your debating and writing skills. I guess you have a way of puncturing the fog of stupidity better than rest! Kudos to you CES!

 

I still firmly believe that convicts keep thier 1st Ammendment rights.

... please answer, I have asked no less than 15 times already and you refuse to answer...WHY ?

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

First I was diplomatic and nice; hoping that you would clean up your act.

 

Now

[hugo]

The latest on the Iowa situation, this is less than a week old:

 

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- Registered sex offenders who live within 2,000 feet of a school or day-care center must move within two weeks to comply with Iowa law.

 

U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt set the September 1 deadline this week after legal challenges to the law delayed its enforcement. The Iowa Legislature passed the residency law in 2002, and other states, cities and towns across the United States have created similar restrictions since then.

 

Local authorities have been preparing to enforce the law for weeks and say offenders living inside restricted areas should begin looking for a new home.

 

"I'm not looking to make any arrests on September 1, but if there are people out there we know about to be in violation of the law, they will get notice," Scott County Attorney Bill Davis said Thursday. "And they will need to be gone in a reasonable amount of time or they will be arrested."

 

Officials say it's unclear how many of Iowa's nearly 6,000 registered sex offenders don't meet the law's requirements. Those who have lived in the same residence since July 2002 are not required to move.

 

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union, challenging the law on behalf of a group of sex offenders, argued that it punished them beyond their sentence and made it impossible to find housing, in effect creating modern-day penal colonies.

 

Pratt struck down the law as violating due process, but the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his ruling. A pair of other appeals also were rejected, and the Iowa Supreme Court has also upheld the law as a tool to protect the public rather than punish offenders.

 

There is a constitutional concern concerning ex post facto. It is a rather expansionary view of ex post facto law admittedly. Those sex offenders who lived in their residence prior to the laws passage are not having to move. There are no 1st Amendment issues. Not even the IOWA CLU claimed such. I need to read the 8th Courts decision. Not sure if the Iowa law was modified to answer Pratt's ruling or the 8th's. I would find evicting someone from his home, based on a new law, problematic. After the USSC's recent destruction of the limits of eminent domain I am not sure what private property rights remain. (I know, whole new debate)

[hugo]

From State v. Seering, Iowa Supreme Court ruling July 29, 2005

 

Prevailing opinion

V. Ex Post Facto.

 

Both the federal and state constitutions

[hugo]

Dissenting opinion

 

I agree with the majority