Question about sex offender registry, Romney, etc.

[Killarney]

I know a couple people who go on and on about Romney being fantastic because he helped Mass. get the sex offender registry online, etc.

I also think it's fantastic that we finally have the registry online, but I'd love to know HOW it happened. Can Romney take sole credit for it or did the Democratic legislature also help out? Thanks for info.

[TaleWgnDg]

1. Romney is a damn gasbag . . .

No governor can promulgate state laws; only a state legislature may promulgate statutory laws. A governor is of the executive branch, and the executive branch "executes" state laws. That is, sets up departments, agencies w/i the executive branch to "enforce" the laws. A governor is granted authority (power) to do such and such via state laws that are promulgated by the state legislature (Legislative Branch).

The so-called "sex offender laws" and the Sex Offender Registry Board were all authorized by state laws promulgated by our state legislature. In other words, without these laws, Romney could do nothing, period.

And, if you are familiar w/ our Massachusetts legislature then you also know that nothing gets done unless (just departed) House Speaker Tom Finneran wanted it done. It was he who allowed this so-called "Megan's Law" to be enacted in Massachusetts.

Romney, on the other hand, merely signed the legislative bill into law. It could as well have been enacted into law if Romney did nothing but merely let the bill set on his desk. It could as well have been enacted into law if Romney vetoed it b/c more than likely both Houses of the state legislature would have over-ridden any gubernatorial veto.

1.) here's the (Legislative Branch) state laws granting authority to the Executive Branch u/ Governor Romney to set-up various departments and agencies w/i his Executive Branch, draft state regulations that enable certain agencies w/i the Executive Branch (MA Sex Offender Registry Board, etc) to set up guidelines and directives across Massachusetts:
M.G.L. c. 6, §§ 178C – 178Q (Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 6, sections 178C through 178Q)
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/6-178c.htm

1.a) all the various Executive Branch departments and agencies must comply w/ the state law (above) including the CMR (below) that may be drafted by the various state departments, governor, and/or agencies in compliance w/ such state laws.

2.) the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) (the state regulations drafted by the Executive Branch state agencies and governor u/ authority as granted by the state legislature's statutory laws) - some of the CMR is online and some of CMR is not online; however, all of the CMR is available at the statehouse bookstore and you may order a hardcopy from the bookstore. The bookstore personal are very helpful and if you request these state regulations in layperson's terms, they may assist you. I suggest you may ask for "all the state regulations as authorized u/ M.G.L. c. 6, §§ 178C – 178Q 'The State Sex Offender Registry Board' regulations." There's a small fee for these hardcopy regs.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/spr/sprcat/catidx.htm

All that said and done, there's another prong to all of this. Politics. Who did what to whom, first? Who may claim Massachusetts "Megan's Law" as his/her own? Did Romney push publicly through his campaign and/or the news media for a "sex offender registration" thereby pushing Finneran to push a bill through? Was there a bill pending b4 Romney came from Utah?

Quite frankly, Romney is a gasbag. It was in the works long b4 Romney claimed it as his own. And, it's been up and down in Massachusetts courts (up to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)) on various (Massachusetts) constitutional issues b4 and during Romney's term as governor. Our Massachusetts constitution grants individual rights and other rights. And it is this that has been litigated which may have caused a delay in "Megan's Laws" (Registry Board, etc.) taking effect. The law works rather slowly and politicians make hay wherever and whenever possible. I believe that Romney made hay out of it and claimed more than he actually did. But then again, what else is new in politics?

But don't take my word for it, research the politics of it through a google or two . . .

Hopefully, I've been of some help.

on edited added: there are federal laws promulgated that request all States to enact a sexual offender registry, etc. 42 U.S.C. §14071 et seq. (The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (the "Wetterling Act") which sets minimum requirements that all States must meet; States may expand upon the Wetterling Act as long as States does not violate state and federal constitutions.)
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00014071----000-.html

The federal law together with some States versions of that law have been litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of giving you the legal cite to some of these cases, here's a CNN webpage giving a cursory view about it at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/

Thus, it may be argued that Massachusetts was quite thorough in waiting and enacting and clarifying its own state constitutional boundaries while other states litigated the federal (constitutional) issues. Again, so much for Romney's pontificating hot air.



.

[Killarney]

2. I figured he was taking credit where it was not due.

Thanks for all the info. I really appreciate the time you put into this for me.
:toast: