That is 6 people with Law Degrees who passed the bar, supposedly, who are so focused on coming up with a pre-ordained ruling they can’t see the forest for the trees. That ruling now hangs over any law the Illionois legislature may come up no matter how crazy it is and I am not just talking about SORNA and Residency Restrictions. I hope they plan to try an appeal to the Federal Courts.

I’m sure you read the part about Eugene V. Debs stating “as a new mother” which is exactly my point. The PERSONAL BIAS should not be used as a gimmick, to gain sponsors for a bill. It’s emotional manipulation at the highest level of cringe. SORNA came to be in a similar fashion.just because all the senators at the time were overwhelmed with the “little Adam this and little Adam that” so the unfortunate take-away is misplaced and misdirected passion is NOT truth when a tragedy is exploited for political gain.

*mic drop*

I totally agree with you except for your conclusion that personal bias and nonsense in crafting laws renders them unconstitutional. What would be true in an ideal world and what is true in the existing world are two different things. The Constitution allows legislators to be idiots and to produce unfortunate law.

There is evidence of this ignorance in the link posted by Eugene V. Debs regarding the statute proposed by Florida representative Anna Luna(tic). She seems to be reacting vindictively and has obviously not explored the implications of her law. The bill makes it unlawful for someone who “knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or sexual activity.” This could be applied to a husband who goes on a honeymoon with his bride. They likely intend to engage in sexual activity. Then there is the question of who did the transporting if the couple switched drivers before crossing a state boundary. That scenario must sound absurd to someone who is not familiar with the way prosecutors think and act. The federal law as now written requires some UNLAWFUL sexual activity rather than merely sexual activity.

I see the article’s statement written in bold to be a statement regarding separation of powers rather than one condoning legislative stupidity. Yes, a legislature “may” do stupid things and can’t be second guessed by the courts having different views of what should have been legislated. Stupid is unfortunately not the same thing as unconstitutional.

mac:
I’m aware that some states like Texas, Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin and New York keep you on the registry after you move to another state. Most likely, this issue will be addressed in future litigation, so I wouldn’t give up hope that someday you will be off of every registry. The litigation in Michigan is very hopeful. Follow this litigation and reassess your options after the dust settles.

Sorry, I have to intervene. You don’t even know the half of it. The worst part is once you get on the registry in IL. they won’t take you off. So, when someone does a national search on you, you pop up in IL, FL. and whatever other states you’ve registered in. Oh, wait, maybe that’s just me of course haaaaaaah

That may be but if he did not, then we would not have gotten the issue in the opinion which is of concern here and one which those in IL should be questioning within their legal and legislative realms if they truly believe and follow this thinking.

I agree with your principle written here.

However, given people have taken to disregarding the US Constitution and court orders/opinions regardless of what they say, a USC amendment would not make a difference. There can be laws on the books dictating what you just said and those in the power would disregard it regardless.

All one has to do is start a petition to put it to a vote of the people to make a law(s) of what you said and it could very well be passed into law. However, who will prosecute it if it became law? The people can complain but will someone prosecute using it if it is violated based upon this complaint with facts? At this time, the only way to prosecute someone who does this is to vote them out of office after making their transgression known. However, will the people who like them in office overlook or accept their error because of their entire body of work in office and let them stay in?

Those in office have the ability to be protected from such stupidity in office and will use it to their advantage every time regardless, even when what you write and propose should be the standard to which they operate when voted in by the people.