Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Criticism (proposal)
While popularity of sex offender registries within the general populace is wide, the prevailing consensus among academics is that Adam Walsh Act has not met its goals and is not leaning on evidence-based practices. Worries of certain aspects of the law possibly undermining the public safety and causing unnecessary harm are frequently expressed in research literature. For example, treatment professional association ATSA criticizes the act for adopting strictly offense based classification of offenders in lieu of superior scientifically validated risk assessment tools, lack of evidence supporting effectiveness of non-risk based community notification schemes, lack of due process for low‐risk offenders to be removed from state and federal registries, broad definition of the term sexual predator, and the lifetime registration of juveniles. Problems in the law has evoked several advocacy groups such as National RSOL, Women Against Registry and USA FAIR to promote reform. In addition to academic critique, moral objections have been raised by civil right organizations such as Human Rights Watch and ACLU, and legal professional associations such as American Bar Association and NACDL

January 2022 Critical Issues as to constitutionality under clearly established law
Given the U.S. Supreme Court's more recent holdings in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) which explicitly state that the constitution deprives the federal government from exercising any sort of "constitutional police power" which exclusively belongs to the several states under the tenth amendment text (e.g. where the police power encompasses all laws enacted for public safety, morality, common decency, public welfare, etc. Where the court explicitly ruled that the "necessary and proper" clause did not create or extend to the federal government any sort of a "police power").

it appears then that most of the Adam Walsh Act would be plainly unconstitutional by reason of tenth amendment prohibition under the more recent clearly established case law - since most of the provisions of the Act do not appear to be based on a constitutionally enumerated power (the constitutionally enumerated powers are: to lay and collect taxes; pay debts and borrow money; regulate interstate commerce; coin money; establish post offices; protect patents and copyrights; establish lower courts; declare war; and raise and support an Army and Navy- where the Adam Walsh Act appears to regulate none of these except maybe as a de minimus tangential consequence of import), that the federal government is permitted to exercise.

It would therefore appear that, at least for academic purposes, this would need to be addressed in the article as it appears to be a major constitutional flaw especially given the Roberts court views and general inclinations concerning the tenth amendment in general. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)