Interstate Commerce Clause? Sex Offender? Part II

You know everytime something goes wrong we blame god, he is causing the end of the world! FACE IT God has nothing to do with it, it's greed, it's MAN! Stop blaming god and backing it up with the bible.

Having said that, we all know Bush doesn't care about the rights set forth for the people. What does this have to do with the sex offender?

Ghoslty,
This article is written mainly for the Group, The Contstitution and The Law. It is about my opinion of this case. I extended my opinion to include the vastness of such miscarriage of judicial process, obviously. As for blaming God, I view that at some what of an understatement. If God created all things then all things must have been created by God. If a preacher says, as I have heard them do, that ones were created for this reason and that reason, and not this or that reason, what is that saying? If bible prophecies come to pass, just as "God said they would," then apparently they were intended. Just like, apparently those who are not uphoding the constitution are apparently intended to be subjected to the consequences of their misdeeds, as biblically prophesized.

Destin, I am sorry about it but I have to agree with Ghostly here. I think you lost your mission in this article. While the president may have signed the bill to require sex offenders to register, it was congress that came up with the legislation and passed it. And while the president and congress enacted the bill to make it law it was U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy that made the ruling in his fourty-four page opinion that determined (in his judicial opinion) that this law was unconstitutional based on the "Interstate Commerce Clause" (The Commerce Clause or The Interstate Commerce Act, this still confuses me).

G-D gave us Free Will so we could decide the road we wish to take. They as humans used this and the power to reason, also given to humans by G-D, to come up with what they did. I think you need to decide whether you want to write an article about your opinion on Judge Donald W. Molloy's decision, the law that requires sex offenders to register, or what you feel are the religious connections to these.

Chana
My consideration was of the comment posted toPart I that cited case laws from years back. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written long ago. So I thought, anyway. Reading over the comments from Part I again, I believe it was from my own research where I found that they in fact determined people to be considered interstate commerce. I found that where I googled "Interstate Commerce Clause," as I recall. When arguing over matters regarding Interstate Commerce there was a question pertaining to the definition of the word "commerce" From that quarrell it was determined that they would include humans to be "commerce." I consider that to be a gross misjustice of the law and consttitution. Truly I branched from the article being on that sex offender case and the opinion of Judge Molloy, but that is because one thing leads to another, and it all comes around to one thing. Corruption in politics that is grossly effecting lives of countless citizens of our country, right now, today.
As for us being given free will to decide what road we take, I have many points I could argue against that assumption, especially how that assumption is used in such matters as you pointed out here.
As I have pointed out, many times before, this nation's constitution was originally constructed to be self sufficient, not dependent on a supernatural power or being, because of the diversity of beliefs and contraversial issues concerning what truly is the reality of such a power or being. It all ties together. I simply expanded on this article because of the obvious evoluton of misjustice that has developed just from such matters as this Interstate Commerce Clause. As hard as they tried to cover it up, the intentions of including humans as "commerce" was based on forms of bondage for both sex and forced labor, very manipulatively infused into legislation, although it is also designed to protect citizens in some areas, such as sex offenses. In other words they went about it all wrong, and the reasons are obvious. They were concentrating on manipulations to suit their own illigitimate causes. The constitution allows for amendments. But sex offense laws should be written under sex offense laws, not Interstate Commerce laws. And humans should in no way be considered as "commerce." But just like so many other things in this nation, I personally recognize such matters as this type of legislaton as just what was written long ago, in revelatons of this time, "an abomination," and "greed." And ultimately deliberate failure to uphold the constitution.

The archaic definition of commerce is sexual intercourse. The clause was placed in effect in 1808. Section 9 appears to grant the authority of the federal govt. for one state to make one adhere to their "duty" as ordered or defined by another state.

D.B. D.
Exactly. The clause was implemented with inferences to sex slave trading and slave labor trading in England, as I recall, and/or some other European countries. Such trading was referred to as Commerce, way back then, but later evolved to refer to trading, bartering and exchanging of goods, products and services; and other resources. Not people. Somehow they managed to manipulate that into declaring human beings as objects of commerce for the sake of developing the Interstate Commerce Clause. My opinion is, from the research I have done, all they were trying to do was to obscurily protect the continuation of slave trading. Sex slaves or otherwise. Anyone claiming to be a christian would know that bondage of any sort is not an acceptable practice according to christianity. Sure, it is people who generally provide services, but just the same it is the service that is the commerce, not the person providing it. Commerce is commerce and sex offenses are sex offenses. Sexual intercourse is sex. Something I hardly remember what it's like being so damned single, and broke, thanks to a bunch of interstate commerce crooks. Not just politicains, other scum too.
BTW. That reminds me, has anyone here noticed how there are so many women on the internet trying to sell their nudity? Actualy they offer plenty enough of it for free. What's up with that? Just trying for free meals and stuff? I find more beautiful woman are online with that crap than there are seen going into church buildings. But then too, most of those at the churches are some of the same ones online baring all for profits. And all these dating sites are mostly just women hooking and crooking, but generally just trying for free meals and money for nude "pics." In that case, the pics are the commerce, not the nude witch from hell casting her spell. (Frequently for her husband's benefit of profits). Isn't this country "GREAT?" Well I guess we'll see how great it is when it all burns.

Thank You For Posting To:
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.

But my understanding was that the case had to do with enforcement of laws across state lines.

I'll us "helmet laws" for example.

If you live in CA and are licensed with your vehicle being registered in this state and you are not required to wear a helmet no other state that you are traveling through is supposed to be able to give you a ticket though they do it is unconstitutional. This is mentioned in Title 49 I believe and cites the ICC. But on the same token if you commit a crime in one state and are fined or punished for such fleeing to another state does not grant you immunity from your "duty". Much of the "family law" nonsense relies on the ICC as well.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

These are the areas that appear to apply. However not to be misconstrued as disagreeing with you.

I don't just say this from my own rebellion and discontentments. I have proof of it. Proof, that those respnsible for uphoding this nations constitution and lawmaking are none other than those who have hijacked this country, at gunpoint, and are using the resources of this country to extend their wealth and prosperity, while literally robbing the civilians, as well as other non civilians of thus country, and using the might of the great military and police forces to do so.

I and many others are living proof of such a statement. As for Christians and bondage that goes for the immorality too though. If the Bible says I give you right and wrong choose right where does it give the Christian the right or "obligation" to be moral police forcing others to overlook the plank in there eye? Even many of the documents and letters written in the making of the constitution indicated that they did not intend to be such. Freedom is supposed to be freedom All men are equal is supposed to be just that. Mankind. All for one and one for all.

Thanks for sharing on Point Monster

DBD
My opinion is that if it is interstate commerce it should come under commerce. If it is about humans, their conduct, or otherwise, it should be under separate laws from commerce. I don't agree with interstate commerce being involved with vehicle registration laws and such.
I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with the interrelations of those laws. For example, uniform child custodey laws, as far as I know, are not entwined with the interstate commerce clause. I have never seen any information about these or others, such as uniform Civil Rights laws being entwined with the Interstae Commerce Clause.
Now, I could understand human trafficking involving the Clause, I think.
But right now my head is too foggy to keep up with so much information. I've been at it all day. When I get the chance I'm going to research more on the Interstate Commerce Clause. But for now, I feel that Commerce law should be restricted to commerce, such as trading of goods and services. In the modern world that is what "commerce" refers to. And interstate commerce, of course, involves trading the goods and services accross state lines.

Until tomorrow, or maybe even the next day.

I understand and agree to an extent but I do have a problem with the rapid changes in the definitions of words as it is making all our laws weak and worthless especially there an advocacy group behind it who is ready to misconstrue them.

Commerce:

1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
3 dated social dealings between people :

Title 42 and many others rely on this to be able to move across state lines. I will try to dig some cites on it. Title 42 is huger though and does quite often bounce you into other titles for definitions. Keep in mind if the ICC didn't apply to your vehicle crossing state lines you would need to register your car and obtain a license for each state you travel through.

Here's a 10 for you!! Thank you for posting this to the Gimme 10!!! Group

Destin. I said I was confused, my confusion has not been addressed by anyone here, or by news reports I have read of this or blogs I have read on this. There are two important federal laws that use the word "Commerce". There is the "Commerce Clause" and the "Interstate Commerce Act" I am still wondering which one Judge Molloy was basing his opinion on. Probably the later, but it is bad to make assumptions when speaking of judicial thinking and decision making in the legal process. To bad no one seems to be able to get a copy of Judge Molloy's decision.

Second, as to religion. I try to keep my religious beliefs and my discussion on United States Law and Constitution separate. My (as you put it) "assumption"

"G-D gave us Free Will so we could decide the road we wish to take. They as humans used this and the power to reason, also given to humans by G-D, to come up with what they did."

Has actually been philosophically agreed upon by Christian and Jewish Philosophers for many hundreds of years. I only added it up as a response to you bringing up religion in your article. You also seem to assume that all of, or the majority of Gather is Christian. If and I say IF this is your assumption it is a bad one. I am not Christian, I am Jewish. But, Hubby, who is a non-denominational Christian and I have discussed something Jesus once said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" many times. Hubby seems to take this as saying that secular law and religious law are two totally separate and distinct things. Since in my mind we should have a totally secular government primariliy under the first amendment, I think it muddies the waters to bring up religion when you discuss secular law.

You have discussed taking people (because I don't believe it is just women) across state lines for "immoral acts". This is covered by the Mann Act (or White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825; codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 2421–2424). I used goodsearch.com and found a Wikipedia article on the Mann Act if you would like to look at information about it.

The direction I would have taken is why Judge Molloy chose this particular piece of American law (here again the "Commerce Clause" or the "Interstate Commerce Act"?) as the rationale for his decision. I guess we will have to wait until his decision is published to fully understand his rationale, but an article in the Billings Gazette "Judge: Sex-offender law overreaches" does shed some light into this.

'Waybright's attorney, John Rhodes, asked that the indictment against his client be dismissed, saying that Congress overreached its authority and violated the Interstate Commerce Clause. He argued that enactment of a provision requiring all sex offenders to register, regardless of whether they travel in interstate commerce, is not a valid exercise of Congress' power under the U.S. Constitution.'

While you seem to be saying that commerce should be held separate from human's behavior, that leads me to ask who conducts commerce? You did not address another question in my mind. News articles refer to Bernard L. Waybright as having "traveled to Montana on several occasions, but did not re-register with local law enforcement authorities, as required by federal law" does the law that requires a sex offender to register require he/she register if he/she is traveling for business or a vacation?

BTW Destin, I like the picture.

I went to read your part one, then did some investigation on my own. Before answering I wanted to get straight in my own head what a misdemeanor sex crime actually was. Each state it is defined different , however I think its bull in every state I have seen so far. This is saying that in some states even adultry is a sex crime. While sure its wrong, and I won't argue with that should they be listed as a sex offender? So saying that personally I don't think he should of been on that registry under what I see listed for a misdemeanor sex crime in Montana. This is one area I think they have over used the registry and innocent people are paying for something they shouldn't.

However, the purpose of this registry is to protect. If they are saying a sex offender don't have to register because they run to another state then I am sorry something is wrong there. I think the registery should be national as well.

Now I will say I am confused on this commerce clause as far as being interstate or not. These people are sick individuals, or the ones that should be on the registery, and there are children who need protected by them. Sorry if saying a sex offender can't move to a certain area without registering is wrong. In my eyes its not wrong they need watched.

There are I will agree individuals who should not be on there, however this is not the arguement here. Those people who shouldn't be has been a victim of a screwed up system. I know a few of those individuals myself. But, I think by saying they can go to another state and not have to register is setting up for some major problems here.

Renee, the articles I could find only say Waybright as having "traveled to Montana on several occasions, but did not re-register with local law enforcement authorities, as required by federal law".

That is wht I asked - does the law that requires a sex offender to register require he/she register if he/she is traveling for business or a vacation?

No Chana it requires them to re-register if they move. In Illinois I know they have to list their employment and if it requires traveling.

Judge Molloy's opinion was based on the Interstate Commerce Clause in accordance to how it is used in the Adam Walsh Act, or part thereof. I have not researched how it is used in the Walsh act, yet.
Waybright was charged in W. Virginia for the misdemeamor sex offense. The Federeal felony charge was in Montana where he travelled on several occcasions. I don't think I agree with a "misdemeanor sex offense." Regardless, if the offender has committed a serious enough offense, they should be scrutinized. And wherever they go.
Webster's dictionary offers several terms for defining "commerce." One of those terms is "intercourse." From the way it appears to me, when the Clause was in the legislation process they took all of the terms used to define "commerce," and manipulated all of that to suit some of their personal desires. It was mentioned in some of the imformation I reviewed, of references that were made to the old English term for "commerce," which was the term they used when referring to sex slaves, mainly referring to female sex slaves used to prostitute.
Now, as for me interjecting religion, I do that on pupose. The fact is those men who are continuously being empowerd to legislate, and execute the laws claim this separation of church and state that does not, and never has existed. The reason is because they are all corrupt, and they use the religion in obscurity and to hide behind to try to cover up their corruption. Our laws and our constitution are the best governing doctrines ever presented to the social world, but they have never been allowed to be properly utilized. Because, the fact is, the constitution was made to have governing administered totally independent upon the supernatural power that so many people have such a problem understaning in its simplicity. But obviously that they do not understand it is a lie. They simply stand in abomination, which is why, just as the bible says, they will be destroyed for the acts of their abomination. And after that there will be no one allowed to live in abomination ever again.
What all of the whole of everything comes around to is actually very simple, yet made so complicated. The Bible that most everyone adheres to has a way of explaining it. It starts off with man in thte garden with his woman. There he is given the opportunity to live right, be healthy and live in peace and compfort. But if he strayed the course, doomsday is to follow. Man strayed by a whim of temptation. So now the flocks of the churches are filled with the decendent followers of temptatoin. So, in otherwords the world is now filled with those who stand in abomination before the creator of their life. The United States Constitution reflects very heavily on this, and is very comparitive to the biblically described beginning. The constitution was written to serve a good social purpose, but just like the biblical beginning temptation stole away its outstanding qualities, never to allow them to be a reality. This case is a perfect example of the miss characterization of justice that has been as a plague upon the American public. There is no legitimate reason for this to be so complicated. It is complicated due to corruption, nothing else. Corruption did the complicating.

Not too much to disagree with here. I'm neutral on religion myself but am fairly knowledgeable on the subject after many years of "private school" and have a clear understanding of exactly what you're saying. However, I do not think that it is impossible to separate the two especially if you're true to your religion more so that your position. As for what I had mentioned before in re to title 42, which this act is under, the constitutional ground aren't listed and the commerce clause has been cited in many cases that cross state lines especially in support orders (servitude) and custody issues (kidnapping).

One of the biggest problems that I have are all the advocacy groups that will turn their heads when real crimes are committed against either male or female due to stereotypical false statistics often exploit the victims as most have not a clue how to help. Look at the increasing number of young men and boy being charged with sex crimes when their was indeed no crime to begin with but just some group of people who feel the need to legislate into the most personal place in peoples lives. The number of children having sex with other children is absolutely alarming but the general consensus is the "it doesn't happen".

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/05/19/news/south_dakota/
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

The daily business of child exploitation by the US govt is the number one drain on soc sec. wether based on sex crimes, family law or the "child protection" agencies.

DB D
I don't believe there's anything there I could possibly disagree with.
I was speaking with someone recently that told me about when he spent 37 months in prison on some trumped up drug charges that he was only suppose to spend 4 months for.
He told me there was a man sentenced to 20 years for a sex offense celled next to his cell that was released after serving only 6 months. That was in a Georgia state prison.
This man served America better than Geroge Bush could ever even dream about. But those of his countrymen in great power seerved him the bitter truth about themselves in return. He has met both Bushes and shook their hands and befriended them , and supported them both through the years. Now he would like to give them what they deserve, after spitting in their faces. He's the one that introduced me to the video in this article. I hope you have watched it all the way through. It has much to reveal. I had been trying to convince him for years that he shouldn't support the government reigning over the positions of governing this country at all, no matter which party. He was really a hard core republican until he saw this video. He is extremely enraged about what he now realizes is the truth, what I've been trying to tell him for so long now. Please don't misunderstand me though, I don't support the democrat party either. The only thing I support is that they are going to bring on their own demise. That is what we are witnessing today. It's just a matter of time now before they all fall. And when the fall doesn't destroy ones of them, and they come reaching, crying to me for help the best they can expect is the best thing for them. A bullet to finish the job to put them out of their misery.

Chana
I studied business administration all through school, including 2 years of college. Not once did I ever hear the word commerce being used in any relations to humans, only goods and services (not including prostitution). I still have my college books that several give a definitions of the word in. None includes humans, only goods and services. No matter what they argued when such legislation was made to include humans, as in the subject of this article, I disagree. There are other ways they could have and should have gone about legislating these matters. But I think that something was cogging their brains. SEX. I venture to say that apparently the talk of it was causing an arousal that cogged their thinking process, and supported more their lustful desires.

Hi Destin

I have seen those videos before. Unfortunately nothing new to me. That is actually a very small part of how our govt officials have overreached into our lives.

The problem with this govt. is too many want uncle scam to do everything for them and have allowed them unbridled control over every facet of our lives.

I do believe I understand you very well. I never have and never will support either party. Our prisons are full of people who do not belong there and many are children. At the rate our govt is dispensing mind altering drugs IMO any drug charge for possession or such is a trumped up charge. Ronald Reagan made it "legal" for law enforcement to entrap or plant evidence to arrest and convict. "Do what ever it takes"

There are also many who are in prison for trumped up sex offenses as well. There was one case not that long ago I had tried to post for you but I couldn't find it. A 14 year old girl baby-sitting an 8 year old boy having him touch her inappropriately and he was arrested. Children aren't even supposed to be arrested and in this case if either one were, it should have been the girl, but according to advocacy groups girls can only be victims. Girls and women don't "rape" boys or men. That's what their statistics say anyway... The number one reason for the incarceration of innocent people is the illegal way the courts operate. Every court in America has a line outside the prosecutors office and anyone who is guilty will usually take whatever deal is offered and most time it is for minimal time if any and some "half balked" rehab program. Those who will not accept a guilty plea when they are not guilty end up clogging our courts and prisons and many states these days have unconstitutional statutes that strip the defendant of many of their rights like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. This is a crime in and of itself committed by judges and attorneys everyday, called fabrication of record the case is supposed to be tried in an open court and not a closet. If you're not there to make the prosecutor's job easy and just plea guilty to whatever trumped up charges they have for which they have no evidence to support you are often marked for repeated arrests, court violations and contempt. Advocacy groups are the only ones allowed to testify yet don't even qualify as an expert witness according to the federal rules of procedure or evidence which are to be applied in every court. Statistics are not evidence and due to their random nature are not to be introduced at all.

As for legislating the matters I do have to somewhat disagree as the commerce clause is not named in the code and it is the way to keep things uniform across state lines. It is a constitutional power given to the govt to prevent someone from crossing state lines to avoid responsibility for a crime they had committed in one state or another. It has also been used quite a bit in sex offenses. There was a CT mayor who was found guilty based upon this for using a telephone to arrange encounters with some young girls. The feds arrested him for this and forgot about all the other crimes being committed by him and the rest of the state govt. officials. At this point I don't think I would change my mind but the possibility of making a new decision based upon new information always exists.

Here's a clip that shows how our lives are micro managed in many facets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZalyKzXnlo

DB D
Thanks for sharing that clip. Rep. Poe may be one of our better politicains, for sure. I don't think we have any like that in Tennessee. In TN it seems they're too busy on the golf course to concern themselves with actually governing. But still the nations people flocked to the bookstores and bought Al Gores book, and went to the theatres to watch his propaganda presentation for dollars. Now he's richer and poluting even more, with his affordabilty made so easy for him by all those complaining. I personally would like to poke his eyes out, spit in his face, and then give him a fatal head wound. That's the closest to buying his book, watching his crap movie, or anything else that would make him wealthier that I will ever get.
What we have happening is those who have become wealthy and have their "click" thing going on, all think they have plans that are about to unfold. They think they're creating events to come to pass that will cause massive depopulation, and then they will be able to live on the way they want to, and have enough left of the "underpriviledged" for them to use as thier servants. What's going to happen though is they are creating their own suicide. That I can guarantee them even if they do survive all the catasrophes they are creating to happen. I'm creating my own advocacy group to make damn sure of it. Everytime I'm watching when George Bush says, "God bless America," it sounds to me like what he says is, "I'm going to hell. I'm a sorry SOB. And all my friends are going with me." Now he would be right about that. And if he ever gets close enough to me I'm going to send him right on his way there. But he knows that. That's why he stays so far away from me.

I wasn't promoting Rep Poe either though. Nor was it a concern about light-bulbs as much as it is about how they legislate everything they really have no authority over. I would have gone into how LED's use 25% less energy than CFLs if that were the case.

It's incredible how much wealth one can accumulate while being a public servant. I can't handle the Obama, McCain garbage or the bitterness of people towards illegal aliens and how they are all criminals stealing jobs, bla, bla, bla when no one cares that the people in our govt are worse criminals than the majority of them could ever dream of being. The saddest part is that everyone is looking at these people believing they even care about Jane and Jon Doe.

Looking forward to your next article.
In the meantime I'll see what I can do to arrange a meeting with him for you.

DB D
I wouldn't give Poe much credit either, actually. He has that title too, "politician," which is synonimous with "BS", and "criminal."
I agree with you. The criminal govt is bringing the illegal aliens here to make criminals out of them.
I hope you can arrange that meeting for me though. I'm anxious to pay the devil his dues.
BTW. Do you suppose we're going to have an ObamaNation?

I would say that it depends on who blows up what and who here in America and who they blame it on. I still can't believe that anyone even believes the "flapjack" theory in the 911 report. I think the next one will have a higher "collateral damage" though. Trying to figure out the location is the puzzle. The way they're pushing mass transit on the rails I would suspect that that would be the most likely but can't think of anything along any of the lines that someone wants to demo and is having difficulty obtaining the permits and/or the funds. Being that the "Big Dig" is in need of repair and is a populated place that would be my guess. I guess we'll just have to pay attention to what is on the cover of their latest Emergency Response to Terrorism Self-Study and whenever they're in town make tracks and get out. Maybe the USDA or ADM would be the ones to keep a closer watch on.

Either way it really doesn't matter though because the more things change the more they stay the same. Personally I think it's time to use the voting machine described in the second amendment.

I'm working on that meeting in the mean time I'm dealing with"chickens in the bread-pan pickin' out dough"

Yeah I agree with that DB D. The voting machine in the second amendment would be the only one that would account for anything worthwhile.
I remember when I was a kid and was taught how to pluck a chicken. Firstt you ring its neck. I think it's time for a chicken pluckin' mass.

They have some really cool machines for pluckin' chicken now. Just don't forget to blanch them first.

".... he began to hum a song
And all the boys there, at the bar, began to sing along

If youll be my Dixie chicken ill be your Tenessee lamb"...

Just don't overlook the Rhode Island Reds they're known for being a bit aggressive. a bit harder to pluck...

What constitutes a "sex offender". Does an innocent man, wrongfully convicted of marital rape become a "sex offender"? He found his wife was having an affair so applied for custody of his two children when she cried rape. No investigation or questioning was carried out and thanks to an incompetent attorney, who has since lost his licence, he was found guilty on the basis of her having told a friend that the rape happened. Please take the time to visit the web page at:
http://crawldog.com/billcolemaninnocentmanwronfullyconvicted/index.php
You never know it could be you next !!