You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #12: Cites: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
T-Jeff_Dem Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
12. Cites:
Red herring: yes -- but here is some info on what part of his colon Sen. Graham is pulling this stuff out of.

http://volokh.com/posts/1104181917.shtml

1 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Justice Ginsburg,

"AND THE AGE OF CONSENT: Several days ago, I ran across an allegation — one which has been repeated in quite a few places — that a 1977 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, co-drafted by then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, suggested that the age of consent be lowered to 12. That struck me as a likely myth or an out-of-context quote, so I decided to look into it.

To my surprise, the allegation seems largely accurate, though in the limited context of the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction. (The report was referring only to federal law, and most sex crimes are covered by state law rather than federal law.)" (more)
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

"Ginsburg's co-authorship of a 1977 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, titled Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, has continued to be a lightning rod of controversy for allegedly advocating that the age of consent be lowered to 12 in the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction regarding statutory rape. In essence, this stance would make it legal for a man over 18 years of age to engage in sexual intercourse with a girl of 12 years. However, the specific intent of the paragraph in question, located on page 102 of the report, remains contentious."
---------------
Seems like a flimsy argument for Sen. Graham to base his case, but is that new news from these folks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC