Reply With Quote
That's one reason why it's a bull law.
I don't know what law they are using, but probably not.
That's one reason why it's a bull law.
So?
Agree or not with what a law is, don't you think it's important to know the law in any questionable activities?
In remember you making an issue of a republican in DC having sex with a 17 year old boy. Consensual sex, and the age of consent there was 16 at the time.
Why is this any different to you?
The link I posted says something to the effect of what I already said, I think it was in the video. It has to do with being illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student.
No. She would not have been prosecuted if this took place after graduation.
You didn't make a single point that countered anything I said.
1. Age of consent: irrelevant
2. Love their interns: pithy and irrelevant
3. bifurcation: fallacious argument as if there are other alternatives.
Laws can be uncons utional, ergo they become "national laws" then the USSC shoots them down. Laws are not automatically "right" just because they are laws.
Example:
1789 - 2010
Acts of Congress held uncons utional.................................. ......165
State Laws held uncons utional.................................. ................948
Ordinances held uncons utional.................................. ................124
State and local laws held preempted by federal laws....................234
Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision........233
In each of these state law cases, someone could be sitting there, teeth firmly clenched on a pipe making assertions that, because it's the law, it's right to punish those who broke it. That flies in the face of the USSC's decisions. We are human beings, not livestock, and as such we are not guided by laws but by our sense of wrong and right. Laws are there to provide punishments for things that we consider wrong enough to merit punishment. Sometimes we are wrong when there are convoluted cir stances, and quite often the religious morality of the cons uency votes in laws that infringe upon our rights as humans. If we all sat aside and said "it's right, they broke the law", we're overlooking or ignoring the very reason for the law, which is not to ensure the law itself isn't violated, but to represent that which we deem "right" or "necessary" as a society.
Arresting and imprisoning that woman is neither right nor necessary and every philopolemic, pedantic attempt at a rebuttal that you will make here will not change that fact.
How would this law be uncons utional?
Besides. I am not arguing right or wrong. I agree it's wrong when there is actual consent.
Like it or not, there is still some laws that are accepted as states right. It's obvious that you disagree with the 10th amendment, but it is part of the cons ution.
The term "age of consent" becomes meaningless if "consent" doesn't provide a legal defense of prosecution.
In Lawrence vs Texas,
Although this addressed sodomy between same sex partners, it set a precedence in that the court decided "that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.[2]"
Since sodomy laws that were in existence were overturned based on the 14th amendment, then this teacher/student relationship law would likely fall under the same umbrella of precedence. Eventually all consensual relationships will be untouchable by law except to provide protection for the citizens involved.
No, the USSC can deem any state law to be uncons utional. That's how the court systems work.Besides. I am not arguing right or wrong. I agree it's wrong when there is actual consent.
Like it or not, there is still some laws that are accepted as states right. It's obvious that you disagree with the 10th amendment, but it is part of the cons ution.
And to answer this question, she would go through the proper channels, namely HR then a lawyer. A lawsuit would follow if the company did not cooperate. There might be criminal charges based on how the event unfolded, otherwise it's exclusively a civil matter.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...itutional.html
In a 4-3 opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Court in Paschal v. State declared the statute uncons utional as applied to the criminal conviction of David Paschal, a high school teacher, for a "months-long sexual relationship" with an eighteen-year-old student. Pashal had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment
on each of three sexual-assault convictions and given ten years’ suspended sentence for a fourth sexual-assault conviction. Pashal relied upon Lawrence v. Texas as well as interpretations of the Arkansas Cons ution protecting adult consensual sex. While the Arkansas court had previously upheld the criminalization of sex by a member of the clergy who is "in the position of trust or authority over the victim and uses the position
of trust or authority to engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity," the court here noted that § 5-14-125(a)(6) was a "strict liability" statute that did not mention trust or authority.
It was on this interpretation of the statute that the majority and dissent bitterly disagreed. The majority opinion, footnote 10, stated: "We find appalling the statement from one of the dissenting justices that the majority’s interpretation of the statute condones a teacher’s misuse of trust or authority." Later in the same footnote the majority writes that the "dissent's manufacturing" of the issue of the teacher's awareness of a position of authority "is both injudicious and irresponsible."
Essentially, the majority found persuasive the fact that the victim was an adult. The state conceded the sexual relationship was consensual, and without more, the statute was uncons utional as applied.
In Texas it is illegal if you work at the school in any capacity at which the student attends. You could be a receptionist who answers the phone and be 18 yourself and it would still be a felony.
Right, which violates the 14th amendment according to the case law I mentioned above.
How was her rights deprived before the due process of law?
Did you even read the material I posted?
Is there any evidence that she used her position of authority to coerce them? I doubt that is the case but absent coercion it's consensual and they were all adults.
I have a hard time reconciling punishing people for having consensual sex. Getting trained by a bunch of 18 year olds is hardly exerting a position of power.
Yes.
Does that apple taste like an orange to you?
Now remind me why in his case, that "sexual assault" was a charge that I would agree with not being overturned? He was charged with a different crime, and it's good it was overturned. His conviction did not match the actions.
No, but that's not her crime.
I have a hard time with many laws we have in this nation. That doesn't mean if I break one of them and get caught, I expect not to be charged and convicted.
Very interesting. Will be watching to see if her defense atty uses this vs the witch hunters.
Remember when Larry Flynt unleashed his private eye dogs on the self righteous Repugnatin pricks who were prosecuting Clinton? One by one he started exposing their extreme hypocrisy till they quickly cried uncle.
Were i the chicks defense atty I'd be contacting Flynt and Howard Stern to unleash a private and public eye storm on the prosecuters. From what i saw in the courtroom video its one woman and one man. Does Texass law prohibit naming the persecuters i mean prosecuters? Cause all the articles simply refer to them as "the prosection". No names given.
He did use it but seems like he didn't give a . No closing argument, no evidence, nothing. I expect it to go to a higher court with a real attorney.
The crux of the defense was that which I showed you the court had decided, "that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment."
In fact the defense used that case (unbeknownst to me) in a half-hearted attempt to get the charges dismissed.
You can dismiss it all you like, but the fact remains that it's intimate consensual sexual conduct. The fact it was illegal at the time didn't sway the courts decision.
What exactly is your argument?
1. She broke an existing law: No
2. She deserves punishment for breaking said law: I beg to differ because...
3. The law is just and does not violate her cons utional rights: there's existing USSC case law and other lower court precedence to suggest otherwise.
Which is it?
5 yrs
don't look for the texas court of criminal appeals to overturn this one anytime soon. Why would elected officials ever rule to strike down a law protecting students from perverted teachers? and, then don't expect SCOTUS to pick this up on federal grounds either.
Because it violates the 14th Amendment?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
