Following a speech by the SMART director, the Heritage Foundation has posted an article on its blog supporting the Adam Walsh Act and criticizing the DOJ for not budgeting any money for Walsh Act "implementation." Interestingly, the post calls out the "small but vocal liberal chorus of opponents to the Adam Walsh Act." From the post:
Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to the National Association of Attorney’s General this week. In that speech, he renewed the Justice Department’s support for the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act—passed by a wide margin in Congress—requires some convicted sex offenders to register with local authorities.
So far, so good, right? One problem: to date, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice 2010 budget gives $0 to implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, and $0 to the SMART Office which implements the Act.
There is more to this than meets the eye. It is no secret that there has been a small but vocal liberal chorus of opponents to the Adam Walsh Act. They do not think dangerous sex offenders should have to register with local authorities. Of course, they know that their opinion is an extreme minority opinion. They also know that no politician will publicly endorse convicted sex offenders....
In that speech (full text below) Director Rogers warns the Coalition of the attacks on the Adam Walsh Act, and the agenda of the far left.
Since the speech, members of the Surviving Parents Coalition—which includes household names like Ed Smart, Erin Runnion, Mark Lunsford and others- - -have given those “key” members of Congress an ear full why requiring convicted sex offenders to register makes sense.
It's funny when believing that a statute impinges on state rights is an argument of the "far left." Of course that wasn't the case when the law in question concerned guns or even sexual violence (but was pushed by Democrats). Now, the notion that people should be given notice of their registration obligations is a liberal cause. And if believing that punishment should not applied for conduct before a statute's enactment is only the concern of a "vocal liberal chorus," then the Ex Post Facto Clause truly has lost meaning. While I question the efficacy of registration in general (since no empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of such schemes), I have proposed a few small reforms to make the SORNA provisions consistent with constitutional requirements. Believing that statutes should be in line with constitutional mandates does not make someone pro-sex-offender as the Heritage Foundation asserts.