Topic: The age of consent in America should be decided at the federal level, not the state level.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q started this discussion 13 years ago#26,396
The inconsistencies cause many problems, such as the fact that teenagers in one state cannot have sex legally while teenagers of the same age can. A 16 in year old is allowed to have sex with whoever they choose (consenting and 16+ as well) in Michigan, but can't do that in Illinois or Wisconsin, where the age of consent is higher. This inconsistency needs to be changed, and the federal law should reflect Minnesota's law, which is the most logical one.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#398,641
What is Minnesota's law?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,642
There is a federal age of consent law, but due to 10th amendment it only applies if the sex goes across state lines. So if you cross neighboring states A and B to have sex, even if they both have AoC of 16, they must both be 18.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 22 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,643
Doesn't impact interstate commerce in any way I can think of, so idk how you'd do this constitutionally. Fake?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,645
@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
They could do this for the sake of regulating prostitution. That has interstate commerce potential.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,646
@398,643 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States > Federal laws > {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties reside within the same state but use an instant messenger program whose servers are located in another state.[43] > {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambiguous on its face and seems to apply only when the minor is transported across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. The United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation. > {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States. > Although legislation tends to reflect general societal attitudes regarding male versus female ages of consent, Richard Posner notes in his Guide to America's Sex Laws; > "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that stricter rules for males do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, on the theory that men lack the disincentives (associated with pregnancy) that women have, to engage in sexual activity, and the law may thus provide men with those disincentives in the form of criminal sanctions."[44] > The Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 13) incorporates local state criminal law when on federal reservations such as Bureau of Land Management property, military posts and shipyards, national parks, national forests, inter alia. Consequently, if an act is not punishable by under any federal law (such as 18 U.S.C. 2243(a) mentioned above) then the local state's age of consent laws would apply to the crime. > The Protect Act § 503 makes it a federal crime to possess or create sexually explicit images of any person under 18 years of age, this creates a federal age of consent of 18 for pornography.[45]
> Doesn't impact interstate commerce in any way I can think of, so idk how you'd do this constitutionally.
Doesn't matter, somehow they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the second time around they banned a whole bunch of drugs without doing the same. Not much stopping them from calling whatever they want "interstate commerce".
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,652
@398,641 (B)
The age of consent in Minnesota is 16.
If the actor is in a position of authority, the age of consent is 18. If the victim is under the age of 13 the actor must be no more than 36 months older. If the victim is 13, 14 or 15 the actor must be no more than 48 months older. @398,643 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
We could do it as an amendment. To protect the children, while protecting horny teenagers from being classified as sex offenders for the rest of their lives just for being horny teenagers.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,654
@398,646 (C)
Sure, I'm not saying it's been completely consistent, but I don't see how it would pass constitutional muster today.
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Or you could have a law where you just tax people for the right to have sex with minors. That would work.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 27 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,655
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,657
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
I'm just explaining the Constitution to you. THanks.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#398,660
@398,652 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
That makes sense. We dont need teachers fucking students.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#398,674
@398,654 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ) Someone's not a fan of Obama's "health insurance for all" plan.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#398,683
@398,643 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Yeah I don't have my case book with me at the moment but I can't think of a way that it would pass any degree of judicial scrutiny. I know the commerce power is really broad but regulating sex among minors doesn't fall under it, and I can't think of any other justification that's better.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#398,685
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
oh wait wasn't there some kind of health/safety/welfare exception? Sounds vaguely familiar but I can't be bothered to look it up. I don't have my casebook either.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,691
That's the whole point of federalism, fatty – you can have different laws for different people in different states.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,693
@previous (G)
That's not really the "whole point" of federalism. Why would that be the point at all?
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,698
They need to make it consistent to violating it for someone underage is the same punishment as a legal adult.
You know Walter, as a person proud of being Germanic, you should know that the ancient Germanic people had this believe men should remain virgins till 30 and women till 20, then they get married. This is straight from Wikipedia. The reason is men have to prove their worth as warriors and women well they live an easy life.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,699
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,711
@398,698 (H)
Read these. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayvik.asp http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1446801/pg1 > The evidence of the sagas and laws shows that male homosexuality was regarded in two lights: there was nothing at all strange or shameful about a man having intercourse with another man if he was in the active or "manly" role, however the passive partner in homosexual intercourse was regarded with derision. It must be remembered, however, that the laws and sagas reflect the Christian consciousness of the Icelander or Norwegian of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, well after the pagan period. The myths and legends show that honored gods and heroes were believed to have taken part in homosexual acts, which may indicate that pre-Christian Viking Scandinavia was more tolerant of homosexuality, and history is altogether silent as to the practice of lesbianism in the Viking Age.
> Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature
> Other evidences of the acceptance of homosexuality in some circumstances at least is provided by the fact that apparently there were some men who acted as homosexual concubines or prostitutes.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,714
@398,693 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
If people didn't feel that they needed different laws from the state next to them, they wouldn't form a federation, they would form a union.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,717
@previous (G)
No you moron. That's an effect of federalism, but not the purpose of it at all.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 11 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,718
@398,711 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
The Greek myths and legends show that honored gods and heroes were believed to have taken part in incest, rape, murder, and petty jealousy, which doesn't indicate that pre-Christian Greece was accepting of these behaviors in their own citizens.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,720
@398,717 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
That is the reason why you choose a federation over another system. Implicit in this is the assumption that there is a reason the people want to unite, and they are now merely investigating how to.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,721
@398,718 (G)
Yeah, but these are the vikings we're talking about. The manliest men that ever lived. Much cooler than those effeminate Greek faggots.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 44 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,722
@398,720 (G)
Shut... the... fuck... up. Just shut up. You're a fucking idiot.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,725
@398,721 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Lol I'm just saying it's not always wise to extrapolate social attitudes from divine myths.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 59 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,726
@398,722 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
whats wrong with you?
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,728
@398,691 (G)
The different laws for when it's considered okay when to have sex are just as silly as the laws that tell you how you are allowed to have sex. @398,725 (G)
Do you doubt the Scandinavians didn't fuck each other in a rather butch way?
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,729
Wot I never understood about Laws Fed vs State.
How is it that under Fed law one can join the military and set ones self up to be killed - Fully trained and ready to roll out at age 18 YET not be allowed to drink alcohol even on a Federal Reservation?
Rules like that make no sense.
Makes sense to me for States to set age of consent. States loaded up with lots of Welfare costs should be able to have some control on cranking out babies at too early an age (not that laws have much say over such)
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,734
@398,728 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
You're comparing two different things, which makes the comparison less effective, perhaps even confusing.
@398,728 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Oh I bet the vikings were massive faggots. Like prison types.