Why, oh why would there be a need for another fracking law?
Link did not come up sorry.
Why don’t they just execute the rapist?
why am I scared of the law of unintended consequences. will we see a rash of rape charges upon men who seek custody from women that should not have custody because of drug use or other reasons...I don’t like the idea of rapists gaining access to children they create but I can see this law creating more problems then it solves
This Michigan rape law is based on 10th Amendment-protected state powers.
On the other hand, if the feds made a rape law in the name of civil rights, a good vote winner, and claimed their law trumped this state law because of the Supremacy Clause (6.2) then the feds would be wrong. This is because the states have never amended the Constitution to give the feds the specific power to make such a law.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Insights, corrections welcome.
“This bill would allow a rape survivor who becomes pregnant from assault to petition the family court to terminate the parental custody and parenting time (aka “visitation”) of her assailant under a “clear and convincing” evidence standard and without the necessity of a criminal conviction. Current law provides for the termination of parental rights of a man who impregnates a woman via sexual assault if he is convicted of felony rape. Unfortunately, felony rape convictions are difficult to obtain and require a legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
legal description: “Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality.”
This sounds tricky.
A man is accused of rape, resulting in pregnancy. But there is not enough evidence to convict him of rape. But the judge decides he *probably* raped her, so even if the man claimed their sex was consensual, he can be denied custody.
This is a terrible idea. Any woman who wants to get the man out of her life simply has to accuse him of rape. No conviction needed.
If there is a conviction, the rapist should have zero rights.
That has to be unconstitutional in the Obama world!