https://www.narsol.org/2022/09/the-reviews-are-in-a-message-from-the-author/ National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws Mon, 17 Jul 2023 13:57:23 +0000 hourly 1 https://www.narsol.org/2022/09/the-reviews-are-in-a-message-from-the-author/#comment-35994 Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:34:22 +0000 https://narsol.org/?p=88832#comment-35994 Not a surprising position for a believer. The intent behind labeling people to sex offender status was ( is) presumed different than the people’s intent to compel registration upon conviction. What he misses is the undeniable connection among law, the gov database, and the rather ubiquitous term “sex offender.” The author makes note of the silence among the majority, but falls short of identifying precisely the crux of the moral conflict. Defending sex offenders is not enough to convince the people, otherwise the onerous outcomes already witnessed would have worked to convince them. Thus we see another PA fed court returning a case back to the bench so the proven constitutional crux is colored in sufficiently AND in the record. This is of course the very same problem encountered by the 9th circuit circa 1997-8. People, and even highly educated higher courts simply have a hard time pinpointing the conflict well enough to concrete description for human consumption. Therefore are far better moral question doesn’t necessarily involve collateral outcome because these are the collateral consequences. To be successful challenges must focus on intent, the first part of the two part test. This tact also permits a broader scope including the whole of the domestic population. This is true because property rights & usage encompasses most of the foundations of law itself thereby rendered relevance for all of the people.

]]>