The guarantees of the Constitution are in fact not always guaranteed. It is the duty of the government to protect its citizens at almost any cost. This can include foreign and domestic threats. Domestically, this obligation of protection stretches to guarding its citizens from sexual deviants and sex offenders.

The question truly becomes, when does the government’s obligation to protect its citizens outweigh the rights pledged to those same people in the text of the Constitution? The answer, in simplified terms, is always.

Such has become the issue in terms of Megan’s Laws. These statutes are found nationwide in all 50 states. They require those convicted of sex crimes to register their residence with local officials. This enables patrols to keep an eye on the offenders. There are also regulations in respect to how close to schools convicted offenders can live. Megan’s Laws revolve around the rape and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The perpetrator was Jesse Timmendequas, a man who lived across the street. There was no way for the Kankas to know about his past history.

Legislation has changed that now. In Iowa, there are roughly 4,000 registered sex offenders, according to the Klaas Kids Foundation. The foundation is named after Polly Klaas, who was raped and murdered in California, also in 1994. According to the Klaas Kids Foundation, Iowa law requires anyone convicted of a sex crime on or after July 1, 1995, or on probation, parole or work release status on that date, to register their name with officials within five days of moving to their new residence. After the first offense it will remain public for ten years. The second offense incurs lifetime registration.

Recently the constitutionality of Megan’s Laws has come under extreme scrutiny in regards to civil liberties. Yesterday, the Supreme Court finally heard arguments on the issue, the first time since the legislation was enacted in the mid-1990s. The states represented were Alaska and Connecticut.

The issues in the Alaska case are the ex post facto clause of Article 1, Section 9 and the right against double jeopardy as outlined by the Fifth Amendment. If the court finds that the legislation is not meant as a punishment, though, neither of these arguments will stand.

The Connecticut issue is more complicated. It explores the law’s contravention on due process by posting the registry online without ruling if each individual is still dangerous.

The need for protection of those like Klaas and Kanka outweigh the rights of those who have been convicted of sexual transgressions. These deviants “prey on the most vulnerable members of society,” as the Bush administration puts it, and if in any way Megan’s Laws can prevent that, it should be allowed. There is nothing unconstitutional about safeguarding 8-year-olds from rape and murder.

Editorial Board:Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Ayrel Clark, Charlie Weaver, Rachel Faber Machacha, Zach Calef.