In response to a federal judge's ruling that a 30 year mandatory minimum prison sentence was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, a group of House Republicans have filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit arguing that the ruling threatens their authority to dictate the appropriate punishment. You can read the amicus brief here. From Congressional Quarterly's Legal Beat blog:
A group of House Republicans filed a brief Wednesday challenging a federal District Court's ruling that a 30-year mandatory minimum prison sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment for a man convicted of crossing state lines to have sex with a minor.
That automatic mandatory minimum prison sentence was included in the Adam Walsh Act passed by Congress to combat child sex abuse. But in September 2008, Judge Beverly B. Martin of the Northern District of Georgia ruled that penalty was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly Farley, a 39-year-old Texas man convicted of making plans to molest a 10-year-old girl.
In the brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the GOP lawmakers say they "are particularly concerned with the lack of respect and improper deference afforded to Congress by the district court in the case" and suggest the lower court's ruling "threatens to abridge Congress' authority to impose punishment that it deems appropriate to the corresponding offense."
The brief was signed by seven Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee as well as Mike Pence, a former committee member who is now the chairman of the Republican Conference, and Eric Cantor, the Minority Whip.
This was not the first provision of the Adam Walsh Act that's been knocked down by a federal judge. Last year, a District Court judge in Florida ruled the federally-mandated sex offender registry database was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
That automatic mandatory minimum prison sentence was included in the Adam Walsh Act passed by Congress to combat child sex abuse. But in September 2008, Judge Beverly B. Martin of the Northern District of Georgia ruled that penalty was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly Farley, a 39-year-old Texas man convicted of making plans to molest a 10-year-old girl.
In the brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the GOP lawmakers say they "are particularly concerned with the lack of respect and improper deference afforded to Congress by the district court in the case" and suggest the lower court's ruling "threatens to abridge Congress' authority to impose punishment that it deems appropriate to the corresponding offense."
The brief was signed by seven Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee as well as Mike Pence, a former committee member who is now the chairman of the Republican Conference, and Eric Cantor, the Minority Whip.
This was not the first provision of the Adam Walsh Act that's been knocked down by a federal judge. Last year, a District Court judge in Florida ruled the federally-mandated sex offender registry database was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
Whether or not you agree with the district court decision, I don't understand the argument by the Republicans. The Eighth Amendment constrains their ability to dictate certain punishments. If the court found that Congress' sentencing statute ran afoul of the Eighth Amendment, there is no obligation to defer to Congressional decision-making.
every one who vote,s should remember those seven people when it is time for relection what is it that they think they are so powerful that they can skirt around the constitution it is the typical Bush regimen mentality i have been a registerd Rep. all my life and politicians like these guy are making me seriously question my loyalty to the republican party these draconian sex offender laws need to stop the adam walsh act is the biggest knee jerk unconstitutional law to come down the pike in years
Posted by: david | February 23, 2009 at 06:35 PM
Saw this referenced somewhere else so can't take credit for it.
The fed prosecutor in the case is David Nahmias, the same one who refused to prosecute Douglas County DA David McDade for distributing the Genarlow Wilson tape, which Nahmias said is child porn: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-13-teen-sex-tape_N.htm
The Rep. House Judiciary attorney who wrote the brief, Richard Hertling, is the same one who filed a false affidavit in Free Speech Coalition v Gonzales:
http://trewthe.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/doj-filed-false-declaration-in-2257-litigation/
This is part of Lamar Smith's statement regarding the brief: http://republicans.judiciary.house.gov/News/Read.aspx?id=174
“There is no moral grey area in which these criminals can hide. Society has spoken and Congress has responded. Our first responsibility must be to the defense of innocent children. The District court based its ruling, in part, on a flawed analysis of congressional intent. So let us clear away any confusion: Congress takes seriously crimes against children and has imposed strong and fair penalties to ensure that justice is served.”
I guess he wasn't talking about David McDade.
Posted by: annon | February 24, 2009 at 07:16 PM