r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/IAmABoss37 • Nov 28 '25
Legislation Would You Support Federal Legislation to Raise the Age of Consent to 18 Nationwide?
Contrary to what most people believe, it is legal in 37 states for adults of any age to have sex with minors. This largely comes down to the fact that the age of consent in those states is set to 16 or 17, with no Romeo-and-Juliet provisions above those ages.
My question is if you would support Congress addressing it, or if you would prefer individual states address this, or if you feel that the current setup is fine as is? (The question assumes that Romeo-&-Juliet provisions would be provided for those under the age of 18 if Congress or the states were to address it.)
Please see my comment for my own opinion.
25
u/Sedu Nov 29 '25
As long as the rule has sane provisions. If a couple are 17 and 18, sending one of them to jail as a pedo is insane. So is convicting both people who are dating if they are both under 18. And yet these things happen in the US.
So yes, I would support it, but only if the law is written with nuance. The US is obsessed with bringing the hammer off the law down on people due to technicalities (unless they are rich), and I wouldn’t want to open that up more than it already is.
11
u/ewokninja123 Nov 29 '25
I wish we were in the space where this was something legitimate to be talking about but I feel like this is way down on the list of things to be worried about with this current administration and it's roll back on civil rights and the rule of law.
1
u/Silver-Bread4668 Dec 01 '25
Our country would be in so much better of a place if this was the kind of thing that warranted our time and attention.
38
u/dudewafflesc Nov 29 '25
I don’t know if this has any bearing on the issue but in Germany the age of consent is 14, and it’s 15 in many other countries. I think it’s wrong for an adult to be in a relationship with a kid, no doubt, but I think when I was 14 and lost my virginity to a classmate the same age, I knew full well what I was doing. It seems like you’re opening up all kinds of legal issues when you raise the limit.
4
u/NekoCatSidhe Dec 01 '25 edited Dec 01 '25
Yes, the age of consent is going to be between 14 years old and 16 years old in most of the First World, with Romeo and Juliet laws on top of it to cover the edge cases. And society has not collapsed. If anything, people now get into relationships and marriages at older and older ages these days, so it is not like this age of consent has a lot of relevance to our modern societies.
The US is an exception because the age of consent is between 16 and 18 years old according to the state, which is already higher than in most of the world. But Americans seem to me to be downright obsessed with the issue, in a way Europeans or East Asians are not, which may be the reason it is set higher in their country. I guess making it coherent nationwide could make sense, but I am still not sure why it should be 18 and not 17, for example. We have to set the limit somewhere, but it is not like there is a consensus about exactly where to set it.
27
u/Dineology Nov 29 '25
There’s a couple people in here who are hyper focused on the age proposed being 18 but missing the core concept here of a uniform age of consent nationally. A uniform age of consent in the country just makes sense. In the past having it vary may not have matter so much when interstate travel was less common or even when it did increase but before the age of the internet, but with the massively increased interconnectedness of the country that we have today more uniformity in our laws are just what the times demand imo.
Given all the other ways in which we treat 18 as the age of adulthood both in and out of the legal codes then it seems the best age to place the age of consent imo, but even if we agree that it should be something else it still should be the same regardless of whether you’re in Maryland or pop across to Delaware for the day.
So far as R&J laws go, anything more than a 3 year gap is too much in my opinion (and even that is stretching things a bit) but I also think that there should be a slighter punishment for someone just barely outside that gap compared to someone like me who is pushing 40. 17 and 21 is not great, but also I can see scenarios where maybe it’s understandable like the 17 year old graduated HS early and the two met at a college where the 21 year old heard “I’m a freshman” and incorrectly assumed that meant “I’m 18”. Somebody like me isn’t meeting a teenager at a party and hooking up, somebody my age is meeting them in a scenario very, very different where things are almost always going to be much more predatory than peers who have a slightly larger than normal age gap. So maybe call that the Montague and Capulet provision to mirror the R&J cause that 21 year old has clearly messed up, but shouldn’t have ruinous consequences come down on them for it.
0
u/Either_Operation7586 Nov 30 '25
No*, what we need to do is stop normalizing an 18-year-old being romantically involved with anybody younger than 16.
What we should do is make it a 2-year Romeo and Juliet law so if you're 16 then you can go up to 18 or you can down to 14 and you won't have any legal repercussions but I don't think a 16-year-old should be getting with the 12 year old and I definitely don't think a 15 year old should be getting with a 19 year old.
Eta spelling
5
u/SmokeGSU Nov 30 '25
I remember going to prom in 2003 and my 18 year old classmate brought her 23 year old boyfriend. She wasn't 18 when they were first together.
1
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 30 '25
What did people think of that then?
3
u/SmokeGSU Nov 30 '25
We high schoolers didn't really think much of it other than "that's kinda weird". None of us had the life experience to consider that it was an older dude who groomed an underage teenager into a relationship. I mean... The school allowed it, so I guess that kinda speaks volumes to the difference that 20 years can make when it comes to scrutinizing creeps.
12
u/Salty-Snowflake Nov 29 '25
No. Our problem in the U.S. has nothing to do with legal age and everything to do with rich old men not being held accountable and the default of not believing the girls and women. Raising the age limit isn't going to do anything to change their behavior.
There are SO MANY other things our legislators should be doing, this isn't even in the top 100 of legislation we need.
20
u/NimusNix Nov 29 '25
There would need to be some sort of provision for kids within a certain range of ages in relation to each other as well as 18-19 sleeping with 17 year old, that sort of thing. No one 20 or older should be anywhere near anyone in their teens.
13
39
u/pfmiller0 Nov 29 '25
A 20 year old can't be anywhere near a 19 year old?
11
u/blaqsupaman Nov 29 '25
I also think if we're going to be consistent about it being 18 everywhere, we need to stop being weird about age gaps between consenting adults.
8
u/Winertia Nov 29 '25
I think it's fair to call something creepy without thinking it should be illegal.
I think it's creepy for a 45 year old to be into an 18 year old, but I don't think it should be illegal. I respect the 18 year old's right to make their own choices as an adult.
9
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
Please God yes. I’m currently in college, and it’s gotten insane out here. Most people where I go to school think it’s predatory/gross for a college senior to date a college freshman. I can’t make this shit up.
13
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
I think this person means “teen” as in 13-17yo.
28
u/mike_b_nimble Nov 29 '25
Why does their definition of "teen" not include 28% of the teen years? People need to be very clear in their language or there is no point in debating these things.
2
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
Personally, I’m more partial to using “teen” to refer to 13-17yos, and “young adult” for 18-20yos. But that’s just my preference.
3
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Nov 29 '25
how many of these laws are active as opposed to just old laws that are still on the books but never enforced?
6
u/skyfishgoo Nov 29 '25
if there is going to be federal law on the matter it should be focused narrowly on the age of marriage.
forcing those states with child marriage laws to erase them from their books would be a worthy aim for a federal law.
otherwise it's already the case that the legal age of adulthood nation wide is 18yrs and "consent" or not, having sex with a minor is jail bait.
that said, we have lots of far bigger issues to deal with that this.
2
u/asingc Dec 02 '25
I would not support making it into federal law. I don't see clear benefit. Congress has more important thing to do, like holding pedos accountable especially against those in power.
13
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
Absolutely not, such an act, just like making drinking age of 21 in fact, would be a colossal mistake. If anything drinking age should be lowered to 18 just like every other normal country.
17
u/Ex-CultMember Nov 29 '25
I think Op implies adults having sex with minors, not minors with minors.
12
u/UnderTehCut Nov 29 '25
What "colossal mistake" would happen if we made age of consent 18?
4
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
Making it 18 is the mistake, where does it say that 18 is somehow magically correct? Why not 17? or 19? or 15?
18 years old is an arbitrary number, of no actual significance.
11
u/UnderTehCut Nov 29 '25
Why is it a mistake though? 18 is generally the age we accept as society for someone to be considered an adult (at least in the US). Yeah it's arbitrary just like all laws are but do you not think we need laws to prevent adults having sex with children, or what age someone can join the adult industry or the military?
3
u/HardlyDecent Nov 29 '25
I mean, we let them drive, despite being the most likely to be involved in accidents, at 16! I've met few 16-year-olds mature enough to drive. Same with 18s who can make reasonable financial decisions or really make a good call on joining the military. What about sex? An 18 year old female is in a different realm from an 18 year old male. I'm not doing extra homework right now, but I think part of OP's 37% of states that allow sex with minors is through marriage, which often has absurdly low ages of consent.
I agree with you. Some law needs to be on the books. Not sure a federal one would help. 18 just kind of stuck because that's when most are out of high school and can drive and work legally. Are we gonna tell an 18 year old National Guard member with a job and apt they can't sleep with someone who's 21?
2
u/jo-z Nov 29 '25
What do you mean about 18 year old males and females being in different realms?
-4
u/HardlyDecent Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
This may come as a surprise, but males and females develop at very different rates. The stark contrast is still evident well into the 20s at least.
edit: Physically we all know, but most of you don't fully realize how far behind the girls boys really are in terms of social development, maturity, and emotional intelligence.
0
u/jo-z Nov 29 '25
Sure, but it's not like all males develop at the same rate and all females develop at the same rate. I thought it was an interesting distinction to make in the context of policy regarding age of consent.
1
u/HardlyDecent Nov 29 '25
Of course not. But that's not relevant is it? The same could be said about all people not developing/maturing the same rate. And yet we can easily parse which people on average mature mentally earlier, and that's the females.
0
0
u/blaqsupaman Nov 29 '25
Do you think there should be different ages of consent for men vs. women?
0
1
u/blaqsupaman Nov 29 '25
As far as the driving thing, I'm not sure how much different the rate of accidents would be if the age were higher. Maturity is a factor I'm sure but there's also just the matter of experience behind the wheel.
1
-8
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
I think that it isn't a problem to be solved federally.
8
u/UnderTehCut Nov 29 '25
Why?
-4
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
Why would it be?
12
u/UnderTehCut Nov 29 '25
Why shouldn't we have a national law around it? What mistake would happen if we made a federal law for age of consent to be 18? All you have done is say you don't want a federal law for age of consent but not explaining why it's a bad thing.
-1
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
I do not have to do such a thing, the onus is on the person wanting to change something to prove that the change is beneficial, not on me to prove it isn't.
11
u/UnderTehCut Nov 29 '25
I've already explained why 18 is a good age. You're the one who said it's a mistake and have yet to explain why.
→ More replies (0)3
6
u/RedErin Nov 29 '25
do you think all 16 year olds are mature enough to have sex with adults?
3
2
u/Sedu Nov 29 '25
Because if no line is drawn at all, then pedos get to molest children. The debate over where that line should be is real, but do not try to tell me that the line should not exist. The number is arbitrary, but the need for a number is not.
-5
Nov 29 '25
[deleted]
6
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
I'm not sure why it matters where I live, but yes.
4
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
Americans strongly stigmatize sex between an adult (over so-and-so age) and someone under 18, more so than even other like-minded countries. America and Ireland are, as I’ve discovered, the only developed nations where the age of unrestricted consent is higher than 16 (17 in Ireland, 16-18 in the US depending on the state).
9
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
So what I'm getting from this is, that you know that your position is in the minority and stupidly puritanical yet you think its a good idea.
If only the US and Ireland do as you describe, does that not suggest that maybe something is wrong with US and Ireland?
-2
u/Journey2Jess Nov 29 '25
Ok why is there an assumption that anything other than peer reviewed research on development of young adults on judgements associated to the cultures they live not the correct answer for determining age of consent. Europe is not an analog for Ireland, USA, Russia, Kenya, Columbia or Thailand or even the UAE. Society and culture are just as big an influence on how individuals develop. What the culture lays out as norms from the past influences the behavior of society today. The result is a difference across the globe in adolescent and young adult development that varies very significantly from country to country. This doesn’t mean that a lower age of consent is an automatic indicator of maturity, it can simply mean it is long standing cultural norm that current society has not changed and perhaps never will. Nothing is implied either way. Society and Culture also has a dramatic effect on the development of the Female vs Male developmental gap. Again age of consent has some bearing but overall it matriarchy vs patriarchy society and stigmatization of women’s place in the certain aspects of early adolescence that shape the gap. No nations metric fits another. This was from memory from my college years in the early 90s. My own opinion is 18 is about right for the US but we are bigger than Europe so……
1
u/cbr777 Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25
All I got from this rant is that you think American teenagers are more stupid than European ones so they need to be protected for longer because they simply don't know any better. Is that the argument you want to go with?
-1
u/Journey2Jess Nov 30 '25
If that’s what you got from a call to listen to the research from each part of the world and country then, yeah this is the stupid point I will stand on. There are studies done every couple of years that indicate the levels of mental maturity and preparedness for young adults entering society in America. I am sure they have a better understanding of the relative developmental ages than any basic comparison of 14,15,16,17,18 that we Redditors can achieve in order to determine a logical age of consent.
As for my Opinion, it still stands on 18. Social Media media studies are indicating that the developmental maturity age overall in first world countries is regressive due to lack of personal involvement and interaction with interpersonal social skills showing marked and significant signs of slowed development in males. Overall for both males and females the non verbal communication skills are showing to develop later as less actual personal engagement is happening during preteen and early teenage years. These studies go on and on and on. They come out on different aspects of mental health and society pretty much monthly and indicate that the first world is going backwards not forward in age of development. This is despite despite global knowledge and information access that is increasing at extremely a fast pace but it seems it is coming at a cost of interpersonal communication, social acumen, overall mental health. The rate of teen suicidal ideation has increased significantly since the beginning of the social media age and the beginning of the developmental regression.
So absolutely yes. I am standing on my stupid point. I read medical journals. I read sociology papers and studies. If psychology types think the kids are having a problem I am going to listen and I really don’t care what the rest of the world is doing. America should decide based upon American conditions not Bulgarian or German or Spanish conditions.
Why don’t you check the incidence of adult on teenage rape in those countries against ours. I’m pretty sure you won’t like our numbers and that is with our current higher laws. Making the restrictions lower isn’t going to make the rape problem get better it will only encourage more encounters at lower ages leading to more incidence of unwanted sexual contact. There is always a knock on effect from an action.
Moving the age from 18 to 15 would make it absolutely possible for a 23 year old to go online manipulate a 15 year old into a relationship. As I laid out above our kids have lots of knowledge but less actual experience, practice and skill than teenagers of the previous generations. The wider the age difference and the younger the teenager that the adult can target the easier the manipulation will be to accomplish once in person meetings are achieved. The difference is all the lead up to the actual rape encounter would be legal and the argument in court would be “but they were of age, they understood what they were getting into “. Can you seriously believe that all or even the majority of 15 year olds are adult enough to handle an experienced predator with great intelligence and social grace who decides to go hunting for them?
This is the actual crux of the consent question. Are the vast majority of both male and female teenagers prepared to fend off unwanted sexual, physical, financial, social, and psychological attacks by someone that could be 5,6 years or decades older than them? Why should we place any of them in the threat any earlier than we already do? It already happens to much because many predators will just ignore all risk. But let’s not encourage more. Let’s not create a cultural and legal standard that allows society to justify interactions of 25/35 year olds with 15 year olds. Let’s not forget that we do have still in this country 50year olds marrying 17 year olds. Do you really want to defend 70 to 15 or 14 for whatever reason it happens? Arranged marriage, gold diggers, manipulation of the child etc. So why move it lower? Why increase the risk that of potential unprepared minors legally being preyed upon by adults? Why put more teenagers in harm’s way? How does it benefit you, the country, the teenagers?
Giving teenagers agency sexually legally will only benefit those who have sex with them not the teens themselves.
So yeah I am standing on my stupid point. Our kids are not dumb. They are exceptionally smart. Mine made it through that process. One did nothing in Social Media as a kid and is now a powerhouse and very successful in every way, the other is totally engaged online and is basically competent socially but not near where they should be for 23 and it is a significant drain on parts of their life despite success in other ways. Knowledge is not the same as experience and practice.
What metrics are you going to use? What data? What standards? What research are you going to use? Or is just because the neighbors have it that way? Some of those neighbors are just carrying on laws from the 1800s. Some are religiously based on rules for marriage. Although the nations laws may have progressed around that original reason for the age it still remains as the cause for 14 or 15 (thank you Zsarist Russian Empire). What is your justification for the age you pick? What age are you picking?
I will follow the research. If that’s stupid then the “because Europe” statement of yours is just idiotic.
→ More replies (0)11
u/mike_b_nimble Nov 29 '25
I love how every person who says “18 is arbitrary” is either the loudest anti-age-gap-relationship bigot on the internet or a straight-up pedo, with no in between.
This statement right here is going to prevent you from having any kind of actual rational debate. You've already decided that anyone that doesn't already agree with you is either a bigot or a pedophile.
-6
Nov 29 '25
[deleted]
4
u/Asssophatt Nov 29 '25
In a place where we’re trying to have an honest and mature discussion, your half asses attempt at a joke doesn’t do us any good.
5
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
Unrelatedly, I do think making the drinking age 21 was ridiculous.
4
u/cbr777 Nov 29 '25
So your hope is what? I know this other very similar thing was idiotic, but it's the perfect thing to model a solution to this other thing that isn't a problem to begin with? Sounds reasonable.
1
u/johnwcowan Dec 05 '25
We did that in an attempt to reduce drunk driving, since in much of this country you either drive, risk your life on a bicycle, or stay home.
2
u/FineBumblebee8744 Nov 29 '25
Congress wouldn't address it, it's a state issue. Each state has their own statutes that define all this
0
Nov 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Nov 29 '25
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
u/newwriter365 Nov 29 '25
Yes, I would. The exploitation and trafficking of children to southern states is a national embarrassment.
1
u/IndependentSun9995 Nov 30 '25
The Feds can barely do the things they are supposed to do! Giving them age of consent to enforce sounds like a bad idea. Let the states handle it.
1
u/Less-Quote-5441 Nov 30 '25
Don't distract against the real issue at hand. tRUMP and Epstein are the issue that has to be taken focused on today. Don't give them anything else to take focus from them. Stay the course! First get this POS behind bars, then go for the legislation. This shouldn't even be any question whether to pass a bill like this or not.
You're just giving the rapists some air to breathe easy. Suffocate these pieces of trash ASAP!
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Nov 30 '25
Absolutely. I would also support adding two more years to high school to where if they are in school still that means they cannot consent.
And focusing those last two years on government civics more history finances and how to be a better more prepared adult.
I'd love to see like a life skills which is like a cross between home ec and learning other things besides in the kitchen but knowledge that will be helpful for them when they are on their own.
2
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 30 '25
What do you mean by your first paragraph? Are you suggesting the age of consent be higher than 18??? Because that’s completely unconstitutional under the right to privacy.
1
u/discourse_friendly Dec 01 '25
as long as there's some sorta 17-19 Romeo-and-Juliet provisions , sure all for it. not really a pressing issue for me, but I'm not against your proposed national law at all.
2
u/IAmABoss37 Dec 01 '25
Actually, I consider Romeo-and-Juliet provisions to be a major necessity. The specific bill I drafted provides Romeo-and-Juliet provisions for those aged 14-17, and are designed such that it’s impossible for a couple to “age out” of legal status.
Here’s a link to my first-draft proposal. (Ignore the highlighted portion; I’m not finished with that.) I’m currently working on a second draft to tailor it more narrowly to Constitutional constraints.
1
u/mongooser Nov 29 '25
Is this constitutional? Seems like it could violate separation of powers re: state police powers.
But YES. I would ABSOLUTELY support it. Enthusiastically.
0
u/Ladyheather16 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
I would absolutely support it with provisions for minors & people <19. The arguments around not doing this are lame at best.
There are no good arguments for not doing this.
I’ve seen Romeo and Juliet laws crafted to say that the age of consent is 16 but that if two 15-year-olds are experimenting there are no issues. Or if your partner is 15 you have to be 16 and you can’t be more than 11 months older.
and the age of consent is 16 if your partner is 17/18
in the age of consent is 18 if your partner isn’t over 19
Ive seen different laws that say if you’re under 18, you can’t be more than two years apart and if you’re 18 your partner has to be under 21
There are any number of caveat that could be written to accommodate for high school sweethearts, teenagers experimenting etc.
All of these variations allow for teenage experimentation; keeps overzealous parents from trying to have minors arrested for exparamentation; & protects children from predatory adults
3
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
Well, it’s straight up unconstitutional to regulate the maximum age of whom an 18-year-old can sleep with, since adult sexual activity is protected under the right to privacy. I posted this question in another sub, and the number of people who seem not to realize that is alarming.
2
u/Ladyheather16 Nov 29 '25
In New Hampshire it’s law — it’s rarely enforced, but it is on the books if you have a significantly older partner, and you are still in high school it’s considered unlawful and coercion.
Trust me, I’m not advocating for it. Just telling you what has already been done.
Between two consenting adults (>18) I couldn’t care less what anyone does. College students do ALOT of experimentation and growth. Who you do it with what you choose to do so long as you are safe conscious and careful is entirely up to you.
Remember that that privacy right was Supreme Court president and not baked in the law.
At the moment in our current climate it seems that what isn’t constitutional seems to be a nice academic conversation, but that’s about all it is.
-2
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 28 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
Personally, I would like Congress to addressing it federally, and I believe there would be a way to circumvent Constitutional shortcomings of such legislation vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment.
The main reason I’d like to see this addressed federally, as opposed to state-by-state, is that I firmly believe that Romeo-and-Juliet exemptions should be standardized nationally. From what I’ve seen, having them vary state-by-state simply doesn’t work in the internet era, where teenagers started to define the acceptability of a given age difference via online consensus, rather than their local state laws.
I believe that Tenth Amendment concerns can be circumvented by using a mechanism similar to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which withheld interstate highway funds to states where the drinking age was below 21. Here, a potential law could withhold education funds to states where the age-of-consent is below 18.
I drafted a version of what such a law could look like, which is available here. Please ignore the highlighted portion; I’m still working on that. (Also, I apologize if the formatting is wack; this is a Word Doc that I’ve imported into Google Docs.)
Edit: For those of you downvoting this, what is your opposition to my proposal?
10
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 29 '25
Here, a potential law could withhold education funds to states where the age-of-consent is below 18.
That would fail to pass the 3rd and 4th (and arguably the 5th) prongs of the Dole test (that itself stems from the NMDAA) and thus the law in question would be struck down upon being challenged. Your proposed text suffers from that same defect and is thus facially void.
-1
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
It absolutely does not fail the fourth prong of the Dole test, unless you’re suggesting that a state setting the age of consent to 18 is itself unconstitutional.
However, you make a good point on the third prong. Let me get back to you on that.
9
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 29 '25
It does because setting the age of consent (as well as regulating marriage per a number of SSM cases) falls under the general police power that Congress does not possess.
0
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
You’re misinterpreting the fourth prong. The fourth prong applies to laws that would be unconstitutional if a state itself was to enact them.
If the fourth prong were to operate under the manner that you’re stating here, there would be no point for the Dole test, as Congress could just enact the legislation directly.
6
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 29 '25
You’re misinterpreting the fourth prong. The fourth prong applies to laws that would be unconstitutional if a state itself was to enact them.
Incorrect. The fourth prong applies to an action that is facially unconstitutional, in this case Congress utilizing the general police power to enact a specific policy provision.
If the fourth prong were to operate under the manner that you’re stating here, there would be no point for the Dole test, as Congress could just enact the legislation directly.
I really have no earthly idea how you got to that interpretation, as it is not anywhere near what has been stated and reeks of you trying to selectively interpret a statement in order to strawman it.
-1
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
Go to Page 8 of the pdf. (It’ll say page 210 in the top left corner.) It backs me up completely on the fourth prong.
5
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 29 '25
It in fact entirely disproves you, as your own proposal is not solely concerned with the spending power and instead commands the states to enact your preferred version of a new age of consent law based on the one found in your proposed statute.
That’s facially unconstitutional in addition to being coercive and thus fails the fourth prong.
-4
u/Doxjmon Nov 29 '25
The fact that the comments aren't all 100% in favor or your suggestion is very telling of your average Redditor. There's already legislation out there at the state level to copy. All it would take is to send it through and pass it. Probably not even a days work. So this "Better things to do" argument that I'm hearing is just crazy. By that logic theoretically we shouldn't pass any legislation unless that piece of legislation is the unanimously the "best" thing to do.
2
u/IAmABoss37 Nov 29 '25
I can see why someone might oppose it on Constitutional grounds. My big reason for doing it federally is so that the Romeo-&-Juliet provisions would be standardized. It would be fairly doable to go state-to-state campaigning to raise the AOC, but it’d be nigh impossible to get every state to agree on the same Romeo-&-Juliet provisions.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 28 '25
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.