The state abuses it's power again?

[sailaway21]

What's wrong with this picture?
Texas Faces Hurdles Dealing With Polygamous Sect - WSJ.com

I'm not really seeing the difference between what the state did in this case and them just arresting everyone sunday morning at the mega-church down the block. Or, for that matter, arresting everyone in a town of 500 people or so.

As I understand it, there was one complaint of abuse. As far as I can tell this is just another example of the state going way overboard in their self-assigned task of protecting children from their parents and it is coupled with a blatant assault on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

[sailingdog]

Why am I not surprised Sway is weighing in on this... I didn't see you saying much about the Terry Schiavo case though... wasn't that an abuse of government power...and no abuse was suspected involved... just a man and his vegetative brain-state wife.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

What's wrong with this picture?
Texas Faces Hurdles Dealing With Polygamous Sect - WSJ.com

I'm not really seeing the difference between what the state did in this case and them just arresting everyone sunday morning at the mega-church down the block. Or, for that matter, arresting everyone in a town of 500 people or so.

The difference is that they didn't arrest everyone. In fact, I'm not even sure that the police arrested anyone. They executed a search warrant that was signed by an impartial magistrate, that recited sufficient facts to create probable cause that a crime was being committed on the premises. A search warrant does not authorize the police to make arrests. It only authorizes the police to search the premises for evidence of a crime. If a crime actually occurs while the police are executing the search warrant, or, if evidence of a serious crime is discovered as a result of the search, then the police might then have the power to arrest the offender. That's all perfectly consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.

Based on what I have heard so far, the only people who have been taken into custody so far are the children, who were placed in protective custody. The authorities believe the children are in imminent danger of being sexually abused. In order to keep the children from their parents, the state will have to appear in court at a hearing before an impartial magistrate and prove that the children are in imminent danger of being sexually abused. If they can't, then the children will be returned to their parents.

If children are being sexually abused based on some cockamamie religious notions, then freedom of religion is no defense. If your church advocates murder, theft, arson, child molestation, or other criminal activities, the First Amendment freedom of religion does not provide criminals safe harbor.

As I understand it, there was one complaint of abuse. As far as I can tell this is just another example of the state going way overboard in their self-assigned task of protecting children from their parents and it is coupled with a blatant assault on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

How many people should have to complain about a crime before the state is allowed to investigate the crime and/or make an arrest? Is two enough? Three? Suppose the crime is an assault by one person against another person. What if the person who was assaulted is the only one who cares enough to file a complaint? Does he have to circulate a petition, to get the signatures of other people who want the crime prosecuted? The obvious answer is that the state doesn't need even a single complainant to investigate a crime. The state can investigate a crime on its own initiative. A violation of law is not merely a crime against another person. It is also a crime against the state.

The overwhelming majority of people are far more concerned with the protection of children, who are vulnerable to abuse, than they are with the protection of their parents, who can defend themselves through judicial proceedings.

Child abuse is not a private matter between parents and children.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Why am I not surprised Sway is weighing in on this... I didn't see you saying much about the Terry Schiavo case though... wasn't that an abuse of government power...and no abuse was suspected involved... just a man and his vegetative brain-state wife.

Why don't you both try to be a little consistent here. If you agree that the state should take action to protect children where there is reasonable cause to believe they are being abused, why can't you also agree that it was equally appropriate for the state to take action to protect Terry Schiavo where there was reasonable cause to believe she was being abused? Both were extraordinarily vulnerable and utterly unable to protect themselves. In the Schaivo case, the husband ultimately got his way. The state simply slowed down the process by requiring an additional opportunity to be heard in court. That sounds reasonable to me. Likewise, if you agree with the government's intervention in the Schiavo case, why can't you agree with the government's intervention to protect children? They're both in circumstances that make them especially susceptible to abuse.

[erps]

As I understand it, there was one complaint of abuse.

I also understand that once they served the search warrant, there was additional evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that other young girls were at risk.

[sailingdog]

Sailormon-

Terry Schiavo was not suspected of being abused. She was very clearly in a vegetative brain state, and had been so for a very long time when her husband finally sought to "pull the plug" on her. She had no chance of ever recovering, and there was no need for the Federal government to stick its nose into the situation... after the state had already done so.

[erps]

Did she have a living will?

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Sailormon-

Terry Schiavo was not suspected of being abused. She was very clearly in a vegetative brain state, and had been so for a very long time when her husband finally sought to "pull the plug" on her. She had no chance of ever recovering, and there was no need for the Federal government to stick its nose into the situation... after the state had already done so.

You give medical science way too much credit. If the opinions of doctors were infallible, people wouldn't wake up on a gurney in the morgue after being declared dead and sent there by a doctor. Just this week I saw a tv report of a man who had been declared brain dead and was about to have the plug pulled, when he awoke, and has not only regained nominal life functions, but can speak and walk and carry on an active life.

When the practitioners of medical science know that they don't have all the answers, how is it that you are so certain? What's the harm in having a federal judge review the case before final action is taken?

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with the eventual outcome of the Schiavo case, but I also don't have an objection to her case being accorded a federal hearing. I can't think of a better use for our federal courts than to address the kind of far-reaching legal and medical questions raised by the Schiavo case. Why should the state courts have the final word on such important issues? Why shouldn't our more skilled, insightful judges in the federal system have a chance to review and pass upon them?

[knothead]

I am just glad that in this "Christian" country we will eventually stand up to the nut cases and off the wall sects when they get out of hand. I wish the Islamic world would do the same

[sailingdog]

It wasn't the Federal courts...but CONGRESS that was sticking its nose into the Schiavo case.