___________ was out on supervised release in 2004 from a 1996 crack distribution conviction when he met an 11-year-old girl. He served her cocaine and raped her. As soon as Monday, the Supreme Court will rule on his fate.
While court-watchers have been focused on other headline issues the court may decide this term—including cases on abortion, citizenship questions on the Census, and partisan gerrymandering—the ______case could mark a watershed of its own. At issue isn’t the lurid crime itself, but just how much power Congress can delegate to the executive branch. Full Article
Bout ….Damn Time !
This is a potentially momentous decision for us. But, in the typical political context of rubber stamping anything to punish sex offenders, don’t you think Congress could just enact as law the Attorney General’s regulations, and that would make it legal. I have found the text of the Adam Walsh, but where is the Attorney General’s additional regulations that are at the heart of this case?
TAKING DOWN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.
Can we have a discussion about the ” administrative state” without implications concerning government USES of a database? NO!
The 94ONMIBUS inextricably tied sex offenders to the database and gov USES thereof. The notion was the way big data evinced the folks that they were the good guys looking out for our kids. Now kids themselves are indentured to the machines.
no decision today, maybe next Monday perhaps it’s a tie and they are trying to not have it as a tie
@AJ
https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2018/12/20/gorsuch-challenges-blank-check/%3famp
My 2 cents,
IDK where this case is going, but it seems like micromanagement of the executive branch by the legislative branch through the judicial branch. Yeah, there are hundreds of thousands of laws such as SR suggested that rely upon the administrative state to determine the exact regulations or applications of a federally mandated regulatory regime. Congress would have to go into such specifics on every statute it enacts that it could not legislate. The question arises in this case that is the more specific point is how much can congress delegate power to the executive branch. I think it is going to come down to the exact question being asked, who a law applies to and does congress have to spell out in every regulatory statute exactly whom it applies, or can they delegate that exact power to the executive branches or the administrative states. If congress has to name exactly whom a law applies to it is going to have top go back over hundreds of thousands of statutes and amend them to state whom the regulation or law applies to. Other than that, this case means nothing really. The real question, and I believe it is being challenged by CATO is, can they state apply retroactively a regulatory law. This is a big question and it is unconstitutional, in my opinion and apparently CATO. We have talked about this before on here, but I still believe you cannot retro a say tax on a property I bought 20-30-40 years ago and expect someone to pay all the accumulated back taxes retroactively. Someone stated they do this but I find it hard to believe. If my property tax was such and such dollars for 30 years and it all of a sudden goes up, there is no way that the state can say, “you owe us 30 years of taxes retro at this new rate, pay up.” No way. Cannot happen. Somebody mentioned an EPA action as an example of a retroactive regulation, but if a company say pollutes an area it can be sued in civil court to have to pay for that cleanup cost, so even there it is not a retroactive tax or regulation, it is a civil judicial decision. Apparently they have civil retroactive regulatory schemes since CATO filed a brief challenging the civil issue. I think they may very well win on that issue. IDK, I do not say much on here anymore but there are my 2 cents. Lol…
Ok, so the article that steve posted is extremely helpful in sorting out the significance of what is going on here. I suggest you go read it and refresh your memory. Here is a very important paragraph from it: “The law also contains this provision: ‘The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter.’ In other words, Congress left it up to the A.G. to determine how to deal with the estimated 500,000 individuals whose sex crime convictions predate SORNA’s passage.”
Now why would congress leave that particular issue undefined and let it be handled through some executive maneuver? Because they knew it was problematic. They knew you just can’t apply stuff to people who cut a deal before you made the new law. That’s called ex-post-facto, or retroactive application of punishment. The government wouldn’t be in this spot if they hadn’t done such nefarious things.
Not the most sympathetic figure, Gundy. Let’s hope his crime isn’t somehow used to invalidate his arguments on delegation of powers. I seemed to also think that Sotomayor could be standoffish to registrants in their court cases she was involved with, judging from past cases involving her.
For years now, I have been struggling to understand why anything to do with “sex offenses” has anything to do with the Adam Walsh case. Even in the confession of who the police believe killed Adam Walsh, there was no sexual motive, nor did he molest the boy. This act was way too overreaching. It’s kinda like how the rape and murder of Jessica Lunsford was used to “legitimize” internet stings when the internet had absolutely nothing to do with that case.