Posted on 03/13/2010 5:21:54 AM PST by stars & stripes forever
I agree, but wouldn't the common needs of the residents include proper zoning? One common need of residents is jobs. If someone wanted to open a nuclear waste facility in a residential community to "provide jobs", would zoning be a proper way to prevent this, assuming the community didn't want it?
Swingers clubs are an aberration rather than a rule, but I would not use zoning ordinances to keep them out. The abuse of zoning laws is the focus of this article. Being honest, I would have to say that swingers clubs being excluded on the basis of business transactions is really dishonest and hypocritical on my part. What I’m really opposing is the sex that goes on behind those doors.
If we say that the common needs of residents are important, and you along with the community have a need to protect your children from unacceptable exposure to corrupt influences, then why not use zoning laws (in part) to accomplish this? How would you define abuse of zoning laws?
Therefore, I am entirely within my rights to go after that sex traffic directly. At least it’s honest, AND it informs everyone of the problem with that particular house.
Yes, but under "directly" I would include the political process. Campaigning and participation in the political process would be directly going after that sex traffic just as much as writing a letter to the editor or having peaceful demonstrations, IMO.
If there was a legitimate Constitutional issue involving the infringement of Constitutionally protected rights, then that would be one thing, but I'm not sure I see that here.
I agree, but why does govt think they have these powers in the first place.
If we assume no governing Constitutional problems, then since we are talking about local/state laws I would think the 10th Amendment could be used to justify them.
FK: (swingers meeting) I guess I consider it my business if my young kids (or my neighbor's kids) have to walk by that house every day to the bus stop knowing what it going on in there. I don't think it would be a good example to my kids to have a live and let live attitude toward intolerable behavior.
Here's where we differ. I don't believe govt has the right to tell them not to meet. If they are adults and it's not in public it's not my business.
What about prostitution or drug use? Should the government have the right to prohibit these activities if they're not in public? (Until just recently, non-public prostitution was legal in Rhode Island.)
I'm with you 100% that I want my children and everyone else to be free from the filth of the world for as long as possible, but not at the cost of personal liberty.
Plenty of people would say their personal liberty includes publicly walking around in the nude. Should government have a right to curb that personal liberty in favor of the personal liberty of others to be free from it?
Also, as Christians we are surrounded by people that don't know the Lord as their Savior. We can't legislate, or regulate, them into belief.
I agree we can't legislate or regulate them into belief, but we CAN use the political process to support laws that conform to Christian standards because they are for the public good. For example, no one says we shouldn't have laws against murder because it is Biblically forbidden. Sexual immorality is also Biblically forbidden, so likewise that should not be a per se bar against applicable legislation.
Wm: I agree. The arrogance of govt to think it can insert itself into law abiding citizens lives and their use of private property is the problem.
I just found an Illinois law saying "It is unlawful for a child sex offender to reside within 500 feet of a school, playground, or any facility providing programs or services exclusively directed toward people under age 18, unless they owned the property prior to July 7, 2000." This conserns sex offenders who have paid their debt and are now presumed to be law abiding citizens. If this law had been on the ballot, would you have voted for it? I would have. :)
Is such a law designed to actually accomplish anything, other than to give parents some degree of false security?
The sex offender law recognizes that rehabilitation is not possible with sex offenders. Therefore, it extends their punishment beyond the specific time they serve to a type of continuing permanent probation.
It is not a problem at all. It is part of the penalty.
I don't know the legislative history, but I would imagine that part of the intent was to lower the temptation exposure. If I was a habitual drunk driver, then society is probably better off if I do not live next to a liquor store. That kind of thing. Of course these laws can be politically motivated, and guarantee nothing, but they MAY be better than nothing. I would be interested to see a relevant study.
I'm not sure how a law could do that without being directly tied to a sentencing law. Do you know if it works that way? In any case I don't see a problem with such laws even if they aren't penal, legally.
500 feet. That's about 1/10h of a mile. In my neighborhood that would probably cover about half a dozen homes.
A law like that is just a "do something" law which effectively does nothing, but makes the politicians feel good about themselves and gives a false sense to the public that something was done.
The same idiots that passed that law probably passed a bunch of other laws that makes it easy for child predators to evade detection by law enforcement or by concerned parents.
Frankly I think we need a constitutional amendment that states that any legislature that enacts a law must simultaneously repeal an existing law or laws containing the same number of words. So if they pass a law saying sex offenders must live 500 feet from a school, they need to repeal the law that prohibits high school kids from smoking in the restrooms. (Of course the only reason any of us ever did that was because it was illegal, which means that legalizing it would probably go further to stop the practice than keeping it illegal) :-)
I like it. Plus, if we legalized it we could tax it and raise millions for anti-teen smoking campaigns which could never be spent on anything else. Boom, 250,000 jobs just saved or created. You're a genius. :)
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.