The Real Due Process.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that no State 'shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended . . . that equal protection and security should be given to all [and] they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts...."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Field, Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 35 (1885)


Due Process is a term that is difficult to define. Many courts have tried to define it, to create tests to measure it, and show equality in it.

But, if you look at it, and think about it, Due Process is a rather simple concept.

The base version of Due Process is that it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

All three parts are equally important. Without any of those three elements, there would be a violation of Due Process.

This leads us to the question of:

"Where is the beginning of Due Process?"

When this country was created, it was done so with the understanding that the government drew it's power from the permissions of it's citizens.

As the source of the sovereignty, we have a right to have our legislation passed in accordance to the social contract created with the Constitution.

Every time that a law is passed outside of the original construction methods that the Constitution lays out, our Due Process rights are being violated.

The Legislative Branch does in fact have the ability to suspend our rights for a time. That leads us to an understanding of the two types of Due Process.

Procedural Due Process

"Procedurally, due process prescribes the manner in which the government may deprive persons of their life, liberty, or property. In short, the procedural guarantees of due process entitle litigants to fair process." Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com

To take that quote and to think about it leads one to understand that our Procedural Due Process rights guarantee us that our rights will only be suspended by certain methods.

Procedural Due Process is the method by which the government can suspend our rights for a time.

Substantive Due Process

"Substantively, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons from legislation infringing on certain individual rights. Such individual rights may be expressly enumerated in a constitutional provision, as are the liberties that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"These unenumerated rights have been derived from Supreme Court precedent, common law, history, and moral philosophy. Such rights, the Court said, "represent the very essence of ordered liberty" and embody "principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288 [1937])" Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com

Substantive Due Process is the safeguards against encroachment of our rights by the government.

Now we can explore the idea of:

"Where is the 'middle' in Due Process?"

The "middle" in Due Process is the breaking of a law, and the beginning of the Court process.

This is the portion that most people try to define when talking about Due Process.

Here is where people mix up the idea of "Due Process OF law" vs. "Due Process IN law."

"Due Process OF law" is the entirety of Law.

"Due Process IN law" is merely in the Court Room.

And lastly:

"Where is the 'end' in Due Process?"

The 'end' in Due Process is exactly that, the end of a courts sentence on a person.

The finality of a sentence. The completion.

Without that end in a sentence, not only is our Due Process rights violated, but we are put into a form of Involuntary Servitude.

To recap, Due Process has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is very limited in it's allowance of suspension of rights, and exponential in it's protection of rights.

A simple concept to understand, but a hard one to put into practice.

Until you know where the boundaries are...

Bill of Attainder Revisited.

A long time ago, I wrote a piece on Bills of Attainder. It was 14 pages long.

This time, I'm going to keep it short, sweet, and too the point.

I've learned a lot in the last almost two years.

So here goes...



A Bill of Attainder boils down to one key component.

It is any legislation passed in which the legislators assume your guilt without you having ever gone to trial. They then proscribe your punishment in their law.

For example, some states have DUI Registries. It is assumed (and sometimes backed up with studies) that you (the DUI criminal) will commit your crime again. So, since you are guilty of a future offense of driving under the influence, then you must submit to having your name plastered all across the land.

Or, in Hawaii, if you are merely charged with a crime, their Sheriff's website will put you up on their front page. Doesn't matter if you are found not guilty, they still have you up on the internet as presumed guilty.

The easiest way to argue the "punishment" aspect of Bills of Attainder is to realize that our Rights, inalienable as they are, once removed, constitutes punishment. To take someones God given right, is punishment in and of itself. It doesn't matter if the "law" is Civil in nature, or Criminal in nature. The removal of an enjoyment of rights is a punishment.

The other part of Bills of Attainder that needs to be slightly clarified is the area of "targeted legislation."

It is stated in the US Constitution that we are to have Equal Protection. Any legislation that targets and singles out an individual, or an easily ascertainable group of individuals, and creates a law different for them versus the rest of society, is a Bill of Attainder.

Remember, I am not a lawyer. I am a student of the Constitution. IF you feel that there is action that needs to be taken, please consult a Lawyer for guidance.

Oath of Office and Affirmations.

In the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause that says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI, paragraph 3)

According to the dictionary, an Oath is:

"Any type of attestation by which an individual signifies that he or she is bound in conscience to perform a particular act truthfully and faithfully; a solemn declaration of truth or obligation.

An individual's appeal to God to witness the truth of what he or she is saying or a pledge to do something enforced by the individual's responsibility to answer to God.

Similarly an affirmation is a solemn and formal declaration that a statement is true; however, an affirmation includes no reference to God so it can be made by someone who does not believe in God or by an individual who has conscientious objections against swearing to God. Provisions in state statutes or constitutions ordinarily allow affirmations to be made as alternatives to oaths.

In order for an oath to be legally effective, it must be administered by a public official. The law creating each public office and describing the duties of the official ordinarily indicates who is authorized to administer the oath of office. A spoken oath is generally sufficient; however, a written and signed oath can be required by law."

And the Oath they must take is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." (This is the Congressional Oath of Office. Different positions require different wording, but the idea is the same.)

Everyone that swears an oath (or affirmation) swore to uphold the Constitution. They didn't swear to uphold the laws that are written, but to uphold the Constitution. That means in making the law, the enforcement of that law, and how that law is used in Court.

When someone breaks, or violates their Oath, there are strong and serious consequences for that.

A Congressperson can be removed from office, a lawyer dis-barred, and a Judge pulled from his/her bench and dis-barred as well as all of their cases being suspect.

The Code in each State has different punishments for violating the Oath of Office for State Government workers. But the US Code is universal enough to be shown here.

5 US 7731 Section 8(5) says: "Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means."

So when anyone (Congress, Judges, Lawyers, etc.) helps to deprive citizens of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States through force, or coercion, is violating not only their Oath of Office, but the US Code as well. If they are waging war on the Constitution by their actions, they are violating this section as well.

The punishment for Congress for waging war on the Constitution (and thus the US Government) is found in a different section.

18 U.S.C. § 1918 says: "Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia." (The conditions of who this applies to can be read at the link given.)

And another consequence for violating 7731 is a Civil Suit under 1983 law.

When an Unconstitutional law is passed by Congress, upheld in court by the Judges and the Lawyers, the consequences for those actions are fairly strong. Lawyers are dis-barred, Judges impeached, and Congress people are removed from office and never allowed to hold office again.

Charges of Oath of Office are a serious thing. And not to be brought about without some serious facts to back it up.

And lastly, please remember, I am not a Lawyer. This is not legal advice, but merely my understanding of things that I found in the Constitution. If you wish to use this information, please consult a Lawyer.

Stigma- The Antithesis of Liberty

stig·ma

(stĭg'mə)

1. A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach: "Party affiliation has never been more casual . . . The stigmata of decay are everywhere" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.) See Synonyms at stain.

2. Archaic A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave; a brand.

Token of Infamy, Disgrace, Reproach, a Brand.

All of these are tools to keep the "criminal" from interacting with the rest of society. Criminals are a hated group of society, but one group of criminals brings out the animalistic nature of humans.

Sex Offenders.

Stigma is so heavily attached to sex offenders that a mere accusation is enough to raise the hackles of most people.

Why is this important? Stigma removes Liberty.

lib·er·ty  /ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-tee]

1 :the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." --Declaration of Independence


Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are endowed by our Creator. That means that they cannot be taken away.

When Stigma is present, Liberty cannot exist.

To argue that Stigma is removing Liberty, you must meet the "Stigma Plus" rule. More than just mere reputation must be lost with the Stigma. Such as employment or property of some sort.

Once you meet that requirement, you have proven that Liberty is lost due to Stigma. At that point, suits under 1983 and the 14th Amendment become applicable.

Stigma is created by the lies told. A majority of sex offenders do not recidivate. The numbers that do, float between 3-5% depending on the study. The general public feels that sex offenders are monsters that if given a chance, will do the unthinkable again.

The numbers don't lie.

Yet Stigma still remains.

The Eulogy of The United States of America

In the beginning, The United States of America was a bastion of hope. In her borders, people were given the chance to be free of oppressive governments. Free to believe and worship as their souls dictated.

The Founding Fathers wrote up her indoctrination articles. In them, they hammered out the ideas, and the concepts that would shape and mold this young Nation into a beacon to the world.

Each time they met at a Constitutional Conference, prayer was given. Not to say that the Christian Faith that they held was to be the universal religion, but to show that these men believed in a higher power than themselves.

Through this prayer, our Constitution was born.

With this Constitution, our Nation was given life. This life was to offer the people of the world a chance to say "Enough." To this end, we opened our borders to anyone that wanted Freedom. And this freedom was stamped out in our Bill of Rights. That "All Men were Created Equal!" From these "men," a few were chosen to be our voice. Chosen to speak on our behalf.

Congress was called to represent the people. They were to be "of the people, by they people, and for the people." These Congresspeople knew their responsibilities, and took them seriously.

Commerce was established. Ideas were brought forth. And shortly after her inception, America was a force to be reckoned with.

We accepted other nations as they were, but we showed through our efforts that certain behaviors would not be tolerated. We went to War on numerous occasions.

Through our union with our old brethren, we were able to defeat the threat from the East, as well as the threat from Europe. We abhorred the ideals set forth by Germany's leadership. We set out to right the wrongs committed by them.

No more would we allow men and women to be denied their "unalienable rights" in this world. The United Nations, using ideals from our nation, drafted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We even stopped the segregation that was happening within our own borders. We opened the minds of our own citizens to stop the hatred. Our people would be free, and equal!

Through our struggles to enlighten, we forced ourselves to continue to practice these ideals around the globe. Attempting to bring peace to all nations.

America has been a great nation to call home.

But, like in all things human; greed, complacency, apathy, and struggles for power ended up corrupting those that were supposed to be "for the people."

We quietly allowed our rights to be removed. Our Liberty was given up. The ideal that to remove someones rights was to also remove our own was gone. Still, the greed that consumed those in power continued to grow. The poison was leeching into the very minds of the backbone of our nation.

Justice no longer meant what it was spelled out to mean. Now, the more money you had, the more "justice" you received. In the end, her peoples were no longer "innocent until proven guilty," but "guilty until proven innocent."

Soon, the people no longer mattered in their opinions. Those in power began to tell the people, through the media, what they would think.

In the end, the very safeguards built into the Constitution, were utterly ignored. To the point that men ordained to the highest office were quoted as saying that our Constitution was but a "G.D. piece of paper!"

The ideals, the sacredness of the trust given, and the faith of the people were let down. No longer did a person have to be a natural born citizen to become the Nations President.

This President has ushered in a new Nation. This new nation no longer believes in the Republic she once was. This new nation breathes Socialism into her peoples.

Dead are the old ways. Dead is the Constitution. Dead are the Scales of Justice. The Great Nation known as The United States of America has finally fallen.

Fallen because of an attack from within.

Regulatory Laws on Personal Statutes

Regulatory Laws are known as Administrative Laws.

Statutory Laws are laws established by an act of Legislature.

The most interesting form of statutes are those called Personal Statutes.

A personal statute is something that one is assumed to "carry with him wherever he goes." Being a sex offender creates that personal statute. Sex offenders are told where they can live, who gets to know their personal business, if they can congregate, and if they have any rights. These statutes are all based off of a crime committed.

Sex Offender Laws are also considered "regulatory" in Smith v. Doe. The argument here was that the statutes were not illegal because they were "regulatory" and not "punitive." They merely wanted (their intent) to control the sex offenders and not punish them. Punishing them would have been Double Jeopardy. But, regulating their lives wasn't considered to be punishment. If they broke from the statute, then they were brought up on new charges.

The punishment only comes from the deviation from the regulation, and not from the regulation itself.

But, there is a problem with their thinking. Putting a personal statute on someone based on their criminal history creates a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Not only that, but the Supreme Court ruled that "...the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal."

Creating a "regulatory" statute that has a punitive effect (even if the intent is to merely regulate) based off of a crime committed is wholly unconstitutional. Creating a regulation of a "personal statute" nature creates a "cruel and unusual" punishment aspect, as well as violating Double Jeopardy issues.

Sex Offender Laws, whether seen as Regulatory or Punitive, are still Unconstitutional.

And there are other Registries being made every day off of the success of the Sex Offender Registry.

Recreating Segregation

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Self Evident: evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic

"...that all men are created equal..."

All men: regardless of origin, faith, political alignment, age, race, sex, sexual preference, and even regardless of past crimes.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

God (I'm sorry if you don't believe in Him, but I do) gave us these rights, not man, nor a government created by man.

Unalienable: not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

"...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life and Happiness are somewhat obvious, so I won't take the time to spell them out. But Liberty on the other hand, now that is a subject that few people truly understand. If you care to read about some of the ideas behind Liberty, read this, and this.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Despotism:

1.	the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.

2.	absolute power or control; tyranny.

3.	an absolute or autocratic government.

4.	a country ruled by a despot.

When a government, under the guise of protecting it's citizens, actively removes and abolishes the rights of others, it creates a scenario similar to that of when the pilgrims left England. That little shift in peoples perception of government led to the creation of the United States of America. The quotes from above are taken directly from the text of the Declaration of Independence.

In today's society, we are still recovering from the Civil Rights movements, Woman's Rights movement, and more recently, Gay and Lesbian Rights movements. What people forget, or sometimes were not aware of, is that when the government loses control over a previously subdued and segregated entity, they go and find another one to pick on.

Having a common enemy gives the government purpose. It helps the general public feel justified in giving the government it's money. Without a common enemy, the people would cease to bend to the wishes of the government.

The latest common enemy is criminals. And much more specifically, sex offenders. (I would like to clarify that I am not supporting the behavior of any sex offender, or the abolition of the sex offender laws by any means) Sex offenders have become the latest and greatest common enemy the government has seen.

Sex Offender legislation is reaching a fervor the likes of which I doubt this country has ever seen. Every single legislative season is crammed with S.O. bills. Bills that restrict how far an offender can live from another offender, or bills that put large bold type on a S.O.'s drivers license, or legislative bills that uniformly categorize and offender regardless of when it happened or the details, and lets not forget about legislative bills that speak of offenders getting their rights back and allowing them to become contributing members of society, except for S.O.'s.

Everyone loves to hate sex offenders. But, they are still human. In spite of what the government tries to preach about them being sub-human and worthless. Sex offenders have Civil Rights too. They were created equal, and they also have the same unalienable rights as those that never committed a crime.

Unfortunately, sex offenders are considered to be so sub-human, that even after they have served their time in jail, completed their treatment, and payed their debt to society, they continuously get shoved farther and farther down the ladder of society.

So far as to almost rival that of the slaves back in the 1800's. How could I possible say that you ask? Let me explain.

"Slavery", as defined by the Slavery Convention of 1926, is (1)the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status, (2) the slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

The government uses the "right of ownership" (via the DOC) to tell an offender where he can live, with whom he can live, how close he can live to another offender, how close that offender can live to a daycare, nursing home, park, school, bus stop, etc.

And good ol' Uncle Sam uses that "ownership" to come up with new ways to further suppress sex offenders every year.

Sex Offenders are being segregated out of society, for life! And all under the guise of "Regulatory". But, Liberty being an unalienable right, creates a Constitutionality issue with Uncle Sam's ideas of late.

I believe it was the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery. And, I believe that there is a law about segregation as well.

In the thirteenth amendment, it talks about "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". When a criminal is "convicted", there is a sentence attached. If you continuously add to that sentence, you are going outside of the courts to attach punishment for a crime that is already ruled on. That creates another issue that we'll have to discuss at another time.

Here is a quote from a man I've quoted many times before:

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case.
- Thomas Paine."

Criminals lose their right to vote, and according to law, they get it back when their time is served. Except for Sex Offenders.

When will this country learn that segregation will only lead to hardship? Not only for the person being segregated, but also by the very government itself when it has to fight it out in court at a later time.

Segregation will ultimately lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. The very methods that help to create these laws will be used to separate and compartmentalize the very citizens that it's supposed to protect.

Few people realise that 93% of all sex offenders were known (either relatives, or close friend of the family) to the victim.

What if that was your son, your daughter, your wife, or your husband? Would you be able to watch them get treated like that? Would you feel that the system was just then?

Or would you come back and reread this post looking for ideas to fight it?

A Series on the Loss of Rights: Due Process

"Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of respecting merely some or most of those legal rights. In the laws of the United States (U.S.), this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions."

There are two kinds of "Due Process", Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the process by which things are done. Due process by procedures. Substantive on the other hand, are the rights given by the Constitution that are byproducts of the Bill of Rights.

Most everything you read these days is geared towards protecting your established rights. What you don't read about is the establishing of those rights.

Congress in it's near limitless power in creating a new law, often takes it upon themselves to use a House Rule to pass laws and not follow the Constitutional processes.

For example, the Senate is to have a Quorum when creating major legislation. In the definition of a Quorum, the Senate "presumes" that a Quorum is present unless someone calls for a roll call. Basically meaning that 1, 2, 5, or so people could be present to pass legislation. And unless one of those people is dumb enough to ask for a roll call vote, they can pass any legislation they want to. Couple that with Adjournment Sine Die, you get a Congress that does what it wants, when it wants, without the benefit of checks and balances.

Congress is supposed to have a quorum present (51%) when creating or passing major pieces of legislation. Congress is supposed to close it's doors at the end of their season. The Senate IS NOT to create legislation, they are to be the "cooling plate" for the House of Representatives.

So here's the question of the day. If Congress uses the House Rules to pass major legislation, are they following Procedural Due Process in the creation of laws? If they are not, are those laws considered to be Constitutional? Should they be "re-argued" with a true Quorum present? Are they completing their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in the creation of these laws? Are our rights as citizens under the Constitution being protected when they create laws this way?

Adjournment Sine Die

Adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.


This interestingly bland detail introduced itself to me yesterday. As far as I can understand it (not being a Congressman or a Lawyer), this tool is used to close Congress and stop the ability for Congress to pass laws until the next scheduled session.

In case you didn't pick up the connotation there, if it's not used, then any member of Congress can sneak in, and pass laws using trickery. There are documented cases of this. Many laws that are effectively screwing up America today are caused by this very detail. I would elaborate on which ones, but I'm not ready to present such Nationally destructive info as of yet. (stay tuned as I slowly elaborate and give my evidence)

Under the original intent of the Constitution, Congress was only able to act with a Majority. That came to a screeching halt when the South seceded from the Union. Which meant that the southern states were not in Congress. Therefore, not majority could be reached. So, Lincoln wrote a writ to allow Emergency Powers to Congress so that they could get back to writing laws.

One of those nasty powers granted under the writ Lincoln wrote was a little thing called: Suspension of Rules.

I've written about Suspension of Rules before, but here's a brief synopsis. Suspension of Rules allows for the Congress to set aside the normal rules of making laws and pass laws without the normal checks and balances.

After researching this suspension of rules, I became aware that it's existence is tracked back to the 1870's, which would imply the time of the Lincoln writ. Under the Constitution and on major pieces of legislation, it states a need of a 2/3 majority vote. Congress should not have the ability to use the Suspension of Rules to pass major legislation.

Congress does have the ability to create it's own rules in the passage of laws within each House and Senate, but those rules are to help in the making of laws.

The Suspension of Rules is one of those "house rules" that is supposed to be used only on mundane things like the naming of Post Offices and whatnot. It was not meant to be used on major Constitutional issues.

I bring up the Suspension of Rules to illustrate a problem with not adjourning Congress at the end of the session. If Congress is not "officially" closed for the session, someone can come in and use things like Suspension of Rules to pass legislation while most of Congress is not present.

Adjournment Sine Die is important for keeping Congress honest. We may not even have the ability for Congress to use Adjournment Sine Die because we are at a State of War. We have been at a State of War since September 11th, 2001, because the President keeps renewing this decree. While we are at "war", Congress cannot convene.

So, if a controversial law is passed using a "house rule" and not using the Constitutional Rule, should it still be a valid law? Or, should it be considered unconstitutional because Congress didn't use procedural due process to pass that law? If Congress cannot convene, are we given due process when someone in Congress passes a major legislative piece while the session is supposed to be over?

Residency Restrictions becoming Unconstitutional.

There are alot of States that are starting to realise that it is Unconstitutional to restrict the area in which a Registered Sex Offender can live after his sentense period is up. Someone subject to the laws after they are written, will on the otherhand have to abide by them. But the ones that live there now, get grandfathered in. But, if they move, they now have to follow the laws.

I will find more cases where this is displayed.

I will also look for a way to get the Federal Government to see this logic and make it a Federal Law.