Convicted Sexual Predators Can Be Legally Stripped Of Their Constitutional Rights
The ACLU is in the news supporting parental rights. Yes this is the same ACLU that does not believe that parents have the right to be notified if their children are getting an abortion. I define parental rights as they were defined by John Locke and then made law through the Declaration of Independence in an earlier post that you may access for reference. Below I describe the situation in question.
The ACLU who would deny due process to parents when their children are thinking of getting an abortion has no problem backing up a convicted child molester whom has been stripped of their parental right through due process of law. ACLU seems to also have trouble understanding the rule of natural human rights which is that liberty does not justify license. Thus the government depriving the father of his parental right because of fears he would molest his child does not violate his natural right of parent as his prior actions justifies the removal of that right from him. The same can’t be said of the mother which is just what the judge in the case rightly decided and so allows her visitation.
In this case the belief is that the father has done his time and should therefore not be subject to addition repercussions. This belief ignores the Thirteen Amendment of the Constitution allows for the enslavement of individuals whom have been convicted of committing crimes. As this is so, then according to the Dred Scott decision the state has the right to decide what rights they wish to revoke or bestow on convicted criminals even after they have “done their time“. The constitutional reasoning for this is to establish justice and protect society from known predators. The Fourteenth Amendment does bestow equal protection under the law and due process to all persons including convicted criminals but neither of those was violated by the actions of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services.
The agency (Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services) took custody of the baby over the mother's objections. The baby was born Tuesday and the agency obtained an emergency court order Wednesday authorizing it to take the infant. Child welfare workers argued the infant boy's safety is in jeopardy because the father pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York. The agency also cited the mother's alleged history of drug abuse.
The ACLU who would deny due process to parents when their children are thinking of getting an abortion has no problem backing up a convicted child molester whom has been stripped of their parental right through due process of law. ACLU seems to also have trouble understanding the rule of natural human rights which is that liberty does not justify license. Thus the government depriving the father of his parental right because of fears he would molest his child does not violate his natural right of parent as his prior actions justifies the removal of that right from him. The same can’t be said of the mother which is just what the judge in the case rightly decided and so allows her visitation.
In this case the belief is that the father has done his time and should therefore not be subject to addition repercussions. This belief ignores the Thirteen Amendment of the Constitution allows for the enslavement of individuals whom have been convicted of committing crimes. As this is so, then according to the Dred Scott decision the state has the right to decide what rights they wish to revoke or bestow on convicted criminals even after they have “done their time“. The constitutional reasoning for this is to establish justice and protect society from known predators. The Fourteenth Amendment does bestow equal protection under the law and due process to all persons including convicted criminals but neither of those was violated by the actions of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services.
posted by Kerwin | 10:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home