Posted on 02/14/2009 10:51:09 AM PST by Califreak
In only the third such ruling in the nation, a Sacramento judge has found to be unconstitutional a statute that makes it a federal crime for someone to fail to register as a sex offender and relocate from one state to another.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found that, in enacting the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, "Congress overstepped its authority under the (Constitution's) commerce clause."
Karlton made rulings this week in two prosecutions and threw them out, saying SORNA does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
Federal prosecutors immediately filed notices they will appeal and asked the judge to keep the two defendants locked up until the appeals are resolved.
Karlton has set a Wednesday hearing on those requests.
"We believe the court's ruling to be in error, and are reviewing potential appeal" to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown. As with all federal appeals, this one must be approved by the solicitor general, but Brown said he expects no resistance.
"Circuit courts and district courts have upheld the statute as valid," he noted. "The judge is in the vast minority in making this judgment.
"Societally, it is in our collective interest to keep a watchful eye on the whereabouts of sexual predators," Brown said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1485692/posts
Burn the flag and let the pervs run free!
A gift from Jimmy Carter:
Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.
Jump in the pool-$5.00 says he'll be on the list to replace Ginsberg.
Judge Karlton strikes again!
Anytime there is an outrageous ruling, we see that Carter or Clinton appointed the judges.
I’m sure not all judges appointed by Republican presidents always rule as we might hope, but, collectively, Dem. judges seem to twist the legal system and turn the law on its head.
Bottom line here — sex offenders simply need to move to another state, and start all over again, with no legal restraints.
Actually, if the Commerce Clause in the Constitution doesn’t apply here, then maybe there are a few other areas where it shouldn’t apply...
...like 80% of the federal budget. It would be fun to see the Supremes essentially throw out everything other than what was intended by the Constitution (defense, border security, courts, and not much else), although I doubt that Justice Kennedy has the nerve to support it.
That is the real Democrat fear...a court that reduces the federal government to its intended purpose. It would be great if a Carter judge started the ball rolling...but I know that I’m dreaming.
I really think that the founding fathers would have expected us to PROTECT our women and children. I don’t think they would want us to make them targets and then turn sexual predators loose on them. “Unconstitutional” my ass. This so-called “judge” hasn’t got a clue about what is in the U.S. Constitution.
Impeach the B&^%$ard! D’OH! the dems are in charge. fat chance.
If the state wants to prosecute these offenses they should do so. Don’t most states have laws requiring sex offenders to register? The use of the commerce clause to justify passing any laws congress wants is completely out of hand.
Once again, it's a selective interpretation of the Constitution. I'm sure this judge has no problems when laws, across interstate lines, affect people's ability to own handguns.
As an example, if someone is convicted in Ohio of beating their wife, they're forbidden (I believe for life) from purchasing or owning a handgun. If they move to California, they would be prevented from buying a handgun by the "instant background check" that is funded and operated by the Federal government. But, I'm sure that this judge would have no problem with that statute with respect to difficulties presented under the "Interstate Commerce Clause".
Like all Democrats, he is intellectually dishonest and only finds Constitutional problems with legislation when it fits their narrow, political narrative.
I'm not saying these creeps should go free. This should be a state issue though, not a federal crime.
I also fail to see how a rapist or child molester failing to register as a sex offender has any impact on interstate commerce. I say that about a lot of laws.
There are better ways to handle the sex offender offense. And there could be a good precedent in here to use against other federal garbage laws that overstep the authority granted to the Congress in the Constitution.
Neither do you, if you think the Constitution confers the power on Congress to pass criminal laws binding on the States.
There is NO general Federal police power, no matter how good the cause.
And, yes, the Founding fathers DID expect us to protect our women and children, with the horsewhip and the gallows. If we were doing so, foolish and unConstitutional laws like this would not exist.
Hmmm.
That's the truth.
What the heck is a “vast minority”?
I didn’t notice that the first time.
It would be fun. And who knows: the majority of the Supremes view the Commerce Clause much more restrictively than their liberal colleagues.
True, but like Big_Monkey posted, they seem to only have a problem with constitutional violations when their agenda is threatened.
Yeah. You're right. I DON'T!
Beats me. I come from a long line of proofreaders. That was a poke in my eye.
Let this crazy judge take these sex-offenders into his own home.
Let them eat their cereal every morning with the judge, his pretty trophy sife, and his kids.
Let this judge go to sleep at night, wondering if the sex offender under HIS roof will crawl out of bed and murder the entire family.
MEN just don’t GET IT!!!
Sex offenders are the worst!!!
If this were a society of Amazons, there would be no SEX OFFENDERS— they would have already been eliminated from the gene pool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.