7-9-2010 Washington DC:
Congress will now prevent certain sex offenders (whether required to register or not [i.e., registration terms completed]) from receiving A) Unemployment benefits; AND B) Small business loans, if these TWO bills ultimately become law.
Unemployment Benefits:
On 6-28-2010 Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7) introduced HR 5618 "Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010" a necessary bill, with a disastrous provision built into it. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Sander M. Levin (MI-12).
Within the bill is the following:
(h) Procedures- Any State with an agreement under this Act shall implement reasonable procedures to--
`(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and ...
Small Business Loans:
On 5-13-2010 Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4) introduced HR 5297 "Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010" also a necessary bill. The bill has 20 co-sponsors. The bill as introduced had nothing about sex offenders, the House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate. On 6-29-2010 in the Senate there were 23 or so amendments, somewhere buried in those amendments a Senator added the provision concerning certain sex offenders.
Within the bill is the following:
(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS- With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).
Discussion:
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that both of these are based on "HATE" and not any context of safety of the community. Congress cannot base law on "HATE" that simply violates our Constitution. In fact, Congress is supposed to make laws to prevent such, as hate too often leads to violence; history tells us so. What makes this even more egregious is that, lawmakers know this violates constitutional protections, especially since many are lawyers.
Obviously the "Unemployment Benefits" affect far more folks than do the "Small Business Loans" so the greatest effort must be directed to HR-5618.
A few thoughts, first is, that how can Congress deny folks unemployment benefits when folks have paid a portion of their salary, as had the employer, to fund unemployment benefits. These monies have already been collected, and benefits accrued.
While it is true that, this bill is a supplemental bill to extend money available to pay additional benefits beyond what is normal, and maybe some may say, we can deny any based on that theory. The reality is, that would raise a equal treatment under the law issue. Workers are workers, equal footing in the national work force, and must be treated equally, they all have put in their time, and there is no misconduct.
While I can't say I am a Guru of employment law, my heart tells me that, many labor laws -state and federal- would have to be addressed before Congress is permitted this type of labor law amendment, esp. since some folks may have worked under a union contract.
What can be done:
HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits" is still in the Senate and that is where folks must focus efforts. It is in some committee and unfortunately the Thomas site doesn't tell us which one. This committee needs to be contacted as soon as folks find out which one it is.
It is time for EVERYONE (includes moms, dads, aunts, and anyone else in the family) to be e-mailing, faxing, calling and writing their Representives and Seantors in Congress to get this changed and removed from both of these bills.
I wish I had more, but right now I think it more important to get this message out to everyone, rather than do more research. I'll post an update if I find more.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
13 comments:
This has now gotten beyond ridiculous.
If you can't see it, I will plainly spell it out for you.
The politician's are TRYING TO KILL US!!!!!!!
This will not just stop here. If passed, the next thing they will try is to take away any FOOD STAMPS we are due because they will not let us have jobs.
It's called SANCTIONS. It's a "war trick" that starves and deprives a country of certain necessities.
THIS IS AN OUT AND OUT ACT OF WAR.
All I can say is "Unbelievable". People need to start pooling what resources we have and fight in any way we can not only this but all aspect of SO laws. We are loosing at the moment and there seems no end in sight.
it seems as if the gov't would be trying to keep sex offenders from making money...
you cant live in certain areas
you cant work at certain jobs
if you dont have a job, you cant collect unemloyment
and if you want to start your own business, you cant get a loan
seems as if sex offenders ARE the new "n*gger"
I agree with anonymous @8:53 am.
We MUST start pooling our money together so we can fight these laws. We need our own lobbyist and we need a legal team.
The November elections are coming up and there will be many congressmen who will be replaced.
THIS YEAR is the one that counts for us most. We need family members to assist in this also. Time to get organized!!!
We must recognize the cynical game that is going on here. It really has nothing (or only secondarily) to do with sex offenders. These amendments are offered not primarily to punish sex offenders but to defeat the legislation to which they are attached. The proponents of these amendments do not want any extended unemployment benefits or FHA reform to be passed.
These amendments are known as "poison pills." They are offered because few politicians have the courage to vote against "anti-sex offender" bills. The proponents also hope that if they become a part of the root legislation that a few liberals who care about the civil rights of sex offenders may actually vote against extended unemployment benefits for all.
This game is played by politicians of all stripes. When the Adam Walsh Act was being considered by the House of Representatives, some who were against the bill offered an amendment that said that sex offenders who had been convicted of misdemeanors could not own firearms, expanding a federal firearm ban. The amendment passed because very few could vote for the rights of sex offenders to bear arms. The hope was that this would cause some in the House or the Senate to vote against AWA itself because they care more about Second Amendment Rights than sex offenders. Interestingly, this provision got dropped out in conference committee. That's how the game is played.
The good thing about this and other bills passing like this is that sex offenders CAN USE THEM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. It is unconstitutional and can be used to overturn SORNA saying that the laws and the actions thereafter are now PUNITIVE.
I would like to see SORNA overturned and the Supreme Court deciding that for once, it IS PUNITIVE.
I think it's time that we organize a march on Washington. Maybe a couple of hundrend thousand Sex Offenders standing on the steps of the House of Represenatives, demanding that congress stop applying more and more puntive punishments. We are human beings, we are citizens of the United States, and we have the right to be treated as such. The way it sits now, we are second-class residents of this nation, with more and more of our liberties taken each day. We need to make a stand, and I say we organize and make that stand in Washington.
I agree. Start organizing a 700,000+ march on Washington. It will cost them a ton of money and resources to have to register and process 700,000 people that all show up all at once. and again once they leave. Find a legal place that can hold that many people so they can camp out etc. Farm, field something. I keep saying if we can get about 5000+ people who have no other place to live to create a roaming band in each state, go place to place register then unregister. Keep going drive up the costs per city/area. have a scout ahead of the groups to locate a legal address in each city etc. See right now each city may have only a hand full of people. So its only a small burden. And with the residency laws they are controlling or regulating new registrants from entering. Hit the small towns etc. cost them a fortune. What they gonna do/say don't bother to register? Rinse and repeat. One group per state is all it will take. The more the better.
It is a great idea about the march, I only have one question. If we did this, would the Fed's try and bust us all for traveling and then not registering under SORNA?
I can see the asses trying to do SOMETHING!
Problem is that most of us have no money because we all lost our jobs thanks to the POLITICIAN'S.
That actually would be part of the march. It would be chaos for them to have to register 500,000 plus people twice. Once when ya get there and once when ya leave. That will cost them a ton of money and man power etc. A bet they would be sorting paper work for a long time.
If we can get some key people, some with experience with this kinda stuff, to look in to a march I'm game..Tired of this crap and has left me disabled from the stress etc.
Now, let me see if I got this right. They don't want us to live here, but they don't want us to go either.....They would like us to be invisible,but they make us wear ankle bracelets and be on the internet 24/7 and check in regularly....They don't want to give us unemployment, but they don't want to give us jobs either...Does that make sense?
In answer to the following question, please see "How laws are made, for Advocates" on our Congress, Courts and Sex Offenders site (right hand column):
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/
I have been trying to figure out where to ask this question or get this info, and I can't, so I will just ask here. I'm trying to understand how a bill is passed. Ok, it starts out being introduced by the house or senate. Now I thought that once it passed one, it went before the other for a vote. I don't understand where these committees and subcommittees fit in where it shows it going from the Senate or House to some committee?
Any help understanding this would be appreciated.
Post a Comment