Texas girls basketball coach accused of having sex with 5 students (Guilty as sin)

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times ^ | Posted May 16, 2011 at 3:18 p.m., updated May 16, 2011 at 7:35 p.m | AP Staff

[Liberty Valance]

Serious homework fail.

[Judges Gone Wild]

This is a poorly reported reprint. The original article points out it was 5 male students. I was relieved the victims were not the freshman girls basketball team.

[boop]

That’s what feminists were screaming about when it was Clarence Thomas. That when there’s an imbalance of power, it’s a crime. This rule was, like you said, suspended when Clinton did it. Then it was OK.

[Paleo Conservative]

This is a poorly reported reprint. The original article points out it was 5 male students. I was relieved the victims were not the freshman girls basketball team.

I couldn't post the whole KDFW article due to restrictions on posting from Fox. I posted the article from my local fishwrap and the picture from the Fox story.

[precisionshootist]

“Ah, did not know that. It does sound like that is an unconstitutional law though. Not sure you can make it legal to have sex with an 18 year old but not if you are a teacher.

Sounds very likely to be overturned to me...

Strange Texas law - and I’m in Texas.
“

I have to agree. This law is feel good legislation. If you are 18 you are an adult as far as having sex. This law is as unsound as “hate crimes”. I think any teacher that does this should be fired but felony charges, no way.

I hope this goes to SCOTUS.

To damn many laws in this country and way too much police power.

[Deagle]

Absolutely agree! Laws are getting way out of hand and this seems to be one of them. Firing offense, yes... illegal, no.

[Sporke]

What clinton did with monica was not illegal. Lying to a grand jury about it WAS illegal.

[databoss]

That’s a man baby...

[Havisham]

Ok, the photo shows a testosterone neck. Born that way? In any case, it explains the aggressiveness. I recommend zero leniency.

[comebacknewt]

It is a problem even if it isn't covered by this law. College and university faculty can be fired even if tenured for having sexual relationships with students in their classes.

Now you tell me.

[Sherman Logan]

It does sound like that is an unconstitutional law though.

I suggest you're falling into the common (liberal) trap of assuming any law of which you disapprove should be considered unconstitutional.

Which provision of the Constitution would such a law violate?

[aruanan]

I suggest you're falling into the common (liberal) trap of assuming any law of which you disapprove should be considered unconstitutional. Which provision of the Constitution would such a law violate?

Without commenting on the merits of the case you're referring to, I suggest you're falling into the common assumption that unconstitutionality refers only to laws that come into conflict with some "provision" of the Constitution. In that, you're proving correct the opponents of the Bill of Rights who feared that some would start to believe that only those things found in the Bill of Rights would be considered protected rights rather than merely enumerated rights of a larger set of unwritten unalienable rights.

[ArcadeQuarters]

Guilty except when the courtroom is dimly lit and has been serving drinks for several hours.

[eartotheground]

The students are guilty of beastiality

[Sherman Logan]

The US Constitution, at least till the passage of the 14th amendment, and arguably thereafter, applies to federal law only. It was not (at least originally) intended to provide much restriction on state laws that did not affect interstate concerns.

I would agree that a federal law of this type would be unconstitutional, but this is a TX state law. It violates no specific provision of the US constitution. I have no knowledge of the TX constitution.

BTW, using your interpretation the justices wouldn’t have had to find “penumbras and emanations” to decide the Constitution provides a right to abortion. They would have just had to state such a right was one of the unwritten unalienable rights protected by the Constitution.

Do you really want the courts given this additional method for finding whatever they want in the Constitution? Why not “rights” to health care, a living wage, shelter, food, cable TV, etc.?

[Impy]

Doesn’t say boys, obviously then it’s girls on her team.

Absurd she was arrested though. Consensual sex with 18 year olds cannot be a crime. She should lose her job, not her freedom.

[aruanan]

This is true about state law. And states should be the preeminent lawmaking entities. Look what's happened since it's gone the other way.

If the judges in Roe v Wade had done this, it would have been a less tortured way to their end; however, the judges could just as easily have said that under the Constitution abortion, if it could ever be considered a right, must be, since it was not one of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, among those rights reserved to the states and to the people and, therefore, was one properly left to the regulation of the individual states. That would have been the most constitutional way of dealing with it--if they had really been interested in the Constitution.

[Perdogg]

Death penalty

[JRios1968]

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks. You just made my point for me.

This crime should be left to the states and the people. It is not a violation of the US Constitution.

I’m curious what unalienable right you think this law violates.