How much authority can Congress give to the attorney general to effectively write the criminal laws?
That’s a question the Supreme Court will address next term in a newly added case, Gundy v. United States. This case goes to the heart of the Constitution’s separation of powers and, specifically, how much Congress can pass the buck to the executive branch to make our nation’s laws. And that, in turn, is about safeguarding liberty.
In Gundy, the court will review Congress’ delegation of authority to the attorney general to decide whether and how to retroactively apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006, also known as SORNA.
SORNA established a comprehensive system of registering sex offenders and requires offenders to register in every jurisdiction where they live, work, or go to school. It replaced a patchwork system at the state level that allowed convicted sex offenders to slip through the gaps in state sex offender registries when they crossed state lines.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>
This law has also helped the federal government monitor and track convicted sex offenders after they were released from prison.
But SORNA also delegated authority to the attorney general to determine how the law’s registration requirements would apply retroactively—that is, to sex offenders who had been convicted before SORNA became law in 2006.
Congress did not say how, when, or even if the attorney general should make that determination—one that can impose criminal liability on sex offenders who fail to comply.
If Justice Kennedy didn’t write McKune v. Lile and Smith v. Doe–which both relied on a fictitious statistic–we wouldn’t have to worry about registration laws being classified as a ‘civil’ penalty (and evading the Eighth Amendment constitutional protection). Speaking of which, Justice Kennedy is retiring soon:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/377555-gop-senator-justice-kennedy-is-going-to-retire-this-summer
“There’s no denying that the criminal defendant in this case—a man who drugged and raped an 11-year-old girl—committed the kind of horrendous and predatory crime that illustrates why SORNA’s sex offender registration requirement is necessary for public safety.”
No, not it’s not a good example. The Registry in no way keeps anyone safe. It’s not a shock collar that activates right before the person is about to commit a crime. It’s not a GPS monitor with 24-7 eyes on the persons every step. It in no way prevents the person from dragging someone into their home or a back alley and committing more heinous acts. All it is is a public way to keep everyone on the list shamed and open to retribution and vigilantism.
The article writes this:
========
This law has also helped the federal government monitor and track convicted sex offenders after they were released from prison.
========
Isn’t that the definition of still being in custody? LoL
Mandatory minimum sentences are just the opposite. They are Congress taking away the discretion of the judges. There are pros and cons to “soft” separation of powers borders, I guess. There are some details available to judges and regulators in individual cases that need to be considered to best obtain the spirit of the law. Lawmakers can not forsee every detail, and laws that try to do that and micromanage everything, end up like California’s mess of laws.
Interesting comments here. But people who read the article will never see them. It is time to commitment to overwhelming the terrorists who support the Registries. We should speak loudly and often. Copy your comments to the source article.
State of Louisiana passed retroactive registration on sex offenders in 1992 way before SORNA was implemented. If you are released in 1993 you have to register. However, if you are released in 1992, you get a free pass. Equal protection of the law, yea right!