Posted on 09/15/2005 6:48:47 AM PDT by Antoninus
The entire idea of a hate crime is absurd. As opposed to what, a love crime?
Maybe there really are love crimes. It's virtually certain that more gays have died because people were tolerant of their lifestyle than because of so-called gay bashing. How many gays have died of AIDS? How many would have died if homsexuality were still in the closet, and gays had to be more cautious about finding sex partners?
For every Matthew Sheppard, there are probably a few thousand gays who are dead because of "tolerance".
These laws are just another PC effort to control our thoughts and intimidate people into having the proper attitude as defined by the left.
Who gets included in these hate crime laws? Activist groups that have the ideological clout to be included.
How about prosecuting people who mug rich people for some form of class envy hate?
These laws are ridiculous. You suggest that we should enforce them equally, which is a problem because the very existence of these laws is an inequity against those groups not included in the law to begin with. But do you really think it's possible in the current PC atmosphere to equally enforce these laws? Good luck!
As for the slippery slope, it may take longer for free speech to be abridged here, but the intimidation is already beginning. Remember when Pryor was grilled by the Senate Democrats and denied a judgeship because he had said he wouldn't take his kids to DisneyWorld on "gay day"?
Don't think it can't happen here!
Motivation is different from intent. Criminal laws proscribe act + intent (actus reus and mens rea). Hate crimes, in fact, are thought control measures.
Why should there be enhanced punishment for the act of purposefully punching a member of a protected class because one does not like that class for whatever reason? Clearly, it is an attempt to alter and punish one's personal beliefs - thought control.
When one, without justification, purposefully (intent) punches (act) another then a crime has been committed. In effect, the additional punishment of the motivation (hate) is entirely separate from the two basic elements of the crime.
It is not hard to fathom that we too may one day find ourselves at the bottom of the slippery slope that some European nations now occupy.
Dave Reichert, RINO, Bellevue, WA. This state is so badly hosed. This is the guy responsible for catching the Green River killer, and ran against a local talk show lib named Dave Ross. He took over the seat of a solid R who's name escapes me now. The prior officeholder was a woman who was a real rising star in the party and just decided to get out of politics.
"With all due respect, you're just flat out wrong. Intent is part of the crime, it's referred to in the law as the mens rea element. Each crime has some mens rea element, and the crime and associated pubishment is contingent upon the mens rea, or intent, of the actor. For example, killing someone. If your intent was to hurt them vs. kill them it's going to be different. If you do it in response to provocation, that's different than if you intended to do it for months, planned it and carried it out."
I never said anything about intent. I'm talking about a human emotion, hate, and you are talking about intent and pre-meditation. You completely changed the subject.
Bottom line: If I murder someone, not knowing that person is gay or whatever; my sentence should be no different than if I murder them because they are gay. The person is just as dead either way and the crime is the same. Whether it was because they were gay, because I wanted to rob them or because I was just pissed at the world, it makes no difference. The sentences should be the same. The crime is the same.
Kolbe is probably the worst RINO in congress. I hope the Republicans of Pima county get rid of him. I admit I voted for him in 82, but he lost that race. I could not again vote for him. I live in GA now so I can not do much, but I know many people in Tucson that could, and I hope they do.
What differentiated American constitutional law from that of England, our mother country, was the establishment of written constitutions. England had, and still has, an unwritten constitution that is an amalgam of common law court decisions, acts of Parliament, and royal decrees. The intent of the Founding Fathers was to make the Constitution the supreme law of the land, overriding common law precedent and acts of Congress or the state legislatures when they came into conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.
The matter of fact is that the original intent of the Constitution is not what I may think was written. Rather, The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, who were themselves framers of the Constitution, as arguments in favor of ratifying the document, are very specific relative to what was intended. Congressional debates and the proceedings of the state legislatures indicate the original intent of the amendments.
You state that "our constitutional jurisprudence requires us to follow precedent. Precedent has obviously read this amendment much more expansively than you do." You here highlight the two main flaws in modern constitutional theory: the Constitution as a "living document" and the doctrine of stare decisis.
Modern, that is to say, liberal and neo-conservative, constitutional theory hold to the belief that the Constitution, written for an 18th Century, mostly agrarian, white male dominated society, must be interpreted in the face of economic and social changes, along with current day sensibilities. This is the "living document" theory of Constitutional interpretation. Certain social changes have obviously been reflected in the Reconstruction and women's suffrage amendments. However, since amending the Constitution is a tedious, multiyear process, achieving the same goals through legislation or judicial decision accomplishes the same end, but much more quickly. In the New Deal and thereafter, the concept of "general welfare" overwhelmed the letter of the Constitution, first by the New Deal Congress and, after 1938, by the Supreme Court. By 1940, the Federal government had expanded into a dominant role in American society far beyond what even the most enthusiastically pro-government Founding Father would have dreamed.
In 2005, we have a backlog of over 70 years of business and social regulation and an onerous tax structure that denies persons the proper and full use of their property and is a great burden on economic growth and prosperity. We may have a strong economy at present, but how much stronger could it be if taxes were reduced because the Federal role in society was restricted to defense, the postal service, customs, and so forth, as the Founders intended? Were the Feds not so involved in the energy business, how much more oil and natural gas could come from the continental shelf and the Gulf of Mexico? Would coal and nuclear power not be more plentiful and less expensive?
We still pay a high price in loss of competitiveness and economic freedom from the "good intentions" of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and even Republicans like Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Treating the Constitution as a "living document" has been the main path away from limited government and toward socialism.
The second fallacy involves the concept of stare decisis, the position that the cumulative decisions of past Supreme Courts and other courts is authoritative with respect to the meaning of the Constitution. The problem with this position is that these decisions are based on the popular beliefs of a given period. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a favorite of liberals, who, in dissenting from a Supreme Court majority decision, noted that said decision was a ratification of Herbert Spenser's Social Statics(a pro-laissez faire, anti-government intervention book). Few would say that we should honor such legal precedents as Plessy vs. Ferguson (upholding de iure segregation) or the Dred Scott decision (effectively permitting slave owners to bring slaves into free states), even though they were as much "settled law of the land" as Roe v. Wade is today. The 19th Century decisions I cited were grounded in the belief that supposed black racial inferiority justified less than full legal protection for those of African ancestry, just as Roe v. Wade is based on the presumption that unborn persons (fetuses) lack the full protection of the law.
American conservatism is not just a warm and fuzzy feeling about God and country, nor is it a justification for statism in the name of "family values" or "national honor". Rather, it is a philosophy based on the strict limitation of governmental power, especially Federal power, preservation and protection of individual liberty, and the maintenance of national independence and sovereignty. It is neither the "throne and altar" conservatism of Europe nor the older liberalism of FDR, JFK, and LBJ, relabeled "neo-conservatism." It is the predominant political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders, with its roots in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, and earlier philosophers.
The foundational adage of American conservatism should be "the government that governs best governs least," and not "if it feels good, do it."
| Joe Baca (CA) Xavier Becerra (CA) Timothy Bishop (NY) Robert Brady (PA) Mike Capuano (MA) Dennis Cardoza (CA) William Clay (MO) Jim Costa (CA) Joe Crowley (NY) Henry Cuellar (TX) Peter DeFazio (OR) Bill Delahunt (MA) Rosa DeLauro (CT) John Dingell (MI) Mike Doyle (PA) Anna Eshoo (CA) Lane Evans (IL) Michael A. Ferguson (NJ) Charlie Gonzalez (TX) Raul Grijalva |
Brian Higgins (NY) Maurice Hinchey (NY) Ruben Hinojosa (TX) Paul Kanjorski (PA) Patrick Kennedy (RI) Dennis Kucinich (OH) James Langevin (RI) John Larson (CT) Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ) Steven Lynch (MA) Ed Markey (MA) Carolyn McCarthy (NY) Betty McCollum (MN) James McGovern (MA) Cynthia McKinney (GA) Mike McNulty (NY) Robert Menendez (NJ) Michael Michaud (ME) George Miller (CA) James Moran (VA) John Murtha (PA) |
Grace Napolitano (CA) Richard Neal (MA) David Obey (WI) Frank Pallone (NJ) Bill Pascrell (NJ) Ed Pastor (AZ) Nancy Pelosi (CA) Charlie Rangel (NY) Silvestre Reyes (TX) Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA) Tim Ryan (OH) John Salazar (CO) Linda Sanchez (CA) Loretta Sanchez (CA) Jose Serrano (NY) Hilda Solis (CA) Ellen Tauscher (CA) Mike Thompson (CA) Nydia Velazquez (NY) Peter Visclosky (IN) Diane Watson (CA) |
Catholic U.S. Representative Abortion Voting Records 2000-2003
I forgot to ping you on my analysis of the Republicans who voted for the gay "hate crimes" amendment: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484654/posts?page=238#238
Here are the 30 Republicans who voted for the amendment to the law that would add increased penalties for "hate crimes" against gays, along with a possible explanation for their vote:
Bass (NH) Bass is quite socially liberal, and his district voted for Gore and Kerry.
Biggert (IL) Biggert is, and has always been, a RINO---her district is strongly Republican, and we should work to defeat her in the 2006 primary.
Boehlert (NY) One of the most liberal RINOs in the House; his district is one of the most Republican in Upstate New York, voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and conservatives have come close to beating him in past primaries.
Bono (CA) Has a moderate-to-conservative record, pretty well suited to her district, but it's a shame she caved on this issue, as did so many.
Castle (DE) Pretty much a RINO, but Delaware leans a bit Democrat, and Castle is a popular former governor who would be very difficult to beat in a primary.
Dent (PA) Dent is fairly conservative, and his distrist split almost evenly between Bush and Kerry---apparently, hate crime legislation for gays is popular in Southeastern Pennsylvania, since every Congressman from the region voted for the amendment.
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (FL) The elder Diaz-Balart usually votes conservative on social issues, but may be providing some cover for his younger brother Mario and his neighboring colleague Ros-Lehtinen.
Diaz-Balart, Mario (FL) (t has long been rumored that Mario, who has never married and who has sponsored pro-gay legislation, may be gay himself, which could explain his vote.
Fitzpatrick (PA) The conservative Fitzpatrick is a freshman incumbent in a district carried by Gore and Kerry and where presumably hate crime laws for gays are popular---we should give him some leeway, since it's doubtful that someone with a 100% conservative record could hold the seat.
Foley (FL) Foley is fairly liberal on social issues, especially when it comes to special rights for gays; he was "outed" by a gay newspaper last year and it is safe to assume that he is indeed gay, which would explain his vote.
Gerlach (PA) Another SE PA Republican from a marginal district who voted for the amendment; Gerlach has been disappointing on many votes, and it is arguable that his lack of support among conservatives is what led to his inability to get over 51% in either 2002 or 2004,
Johnson (CT) Johnson may be *the* most liberal RINO in the House, but unfortunately is well entrenched in her Republican-leaning district.
Kelly (NY) Has a fairly liberal record on social issues, so her vote is no surprise; I think a more conservative Republican would be able to hold her basically Republican district.
Kirk (IL) A RINO in a district that gave Gore and Kerry smallish margins---we could do A LOT better in that district. But perhaps gay hate crimes laws are as popular in Illinois as in SE PA, since several more conservative Republicans from IL voted for the amendment as well.
Kolbe (AZ) An openly gay RINO, his vote on the issue was never in doubt. Kolbe sits in a district that gave Bush 53% in 2004, and there's no reason why its congressman should support partial-birth abortion and gay marriage. Conservatives should support Randy Graf in the GOP primary.
LaHood (IL) LaHood has never been a reliable Republican vote, but his vote for a gay hate crimes law surprised me. Perhaps the measure is popular in Illinois (even in LaHood's Republican district), and since the weasely LaHood is running for Governor he may be concerned that RAT Governor Blagojevich would call him "divisive" had he voted against it.
Leach (IA) A popular RINO from a heavily Democrat district (tied with Simmons of CT as the GOP congressman representing the district with the lowest percentage for Bush in 2004: 43%), we can't expect any different from Leach.
LoBiondo (NJ) LoBiondo is conservative on social issues, and this vote may be due to either gay hate crime laws being popular in South Jersey (which is part of the Philly metro area, and would jibe with the votes by SE PA congressmen) or because LoBiondo might run for the Senate next year and doesn't want to alienate RINOs.
McCotter (MI) This vote really puzzles me. McCotter is fairly conservative, and the only other Michigan Republican to vote for the bill is a RINO. His district voted rather narrowly for Bush in 2004, but I don't think he would need to vote for the amendment to ensure his reelection.
Platts (PA) Platts is a conservative Republican from an overwhelmingly Republican district. Could hate crime laws for gays be that popular in the Republican heartland? Or has the region been contaminated by the "Schuylkill Punch" (Philly tap water) that is like an hour away?
Reichert (WA) He is a freshman from a district that voted for Gore and Kerry, so this vote is not surprising.
Ros-Lehtinen (FL) She usually votes conservative on social issues, but has recently voted like a liberal on gay issues, probably because her district now includes South Beach and Key West, both of which have large gay populations.
Saxton (NJ) See LoBiondo (from an adjoining district) above.
Schwarz (MI) Schwarz is a RINO who managed to win the primary in this conservative district only because something like 7 conservatives ran and split the conservative vote. Hopefully, conservatives will coalesce around a single candidate this time (maybe Tim Walberg?).
Shays (CT) A RINO who had a close 2004 race in a district that voted for Gore and Kerry, this vote is par for the course for him. A 100% conservative probably couldn't hold this seat, but we could certainly elect someone better than Shays.
Shimkus (IL) An Illinois conservative, leading credence to the theory that gay hate crime laws are popular in IL.
Simmons (CT) A RINO, but in a district so heavily Democrat that he's the best we can do there.
Walden (OR) He sits in a heavily GOP district, yet sometime casts disappointing votes. It may be time for a primary challenge to keep him honest.
Weldon (PA) Weldon has a conservative voting record despite representing a suburban Philly district that voted for Gore and Kerry---we should give him some leeway.
Weller (IL) A conservative from a marginal district in Illinois, his vote does not come as a surprise.
And here are the 5 conservative Democrats who voted against the amendment; all of them are conservative enough so that they would be welcome additions to the GOP caucus and represent districts that would reelect them even if they switched parties):
Berry (AR)
Boren (OK)
Davis (TN)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)
You really need to change your screen name, with all the nonsense you're spewing.
I don't care what their reasons are. It doesn't excuse their gutless vote on this amendment. They all need to be called on the carpet.
Well, we've always looked at what criminals were thinking when they committed their crimes. Intent is an important part of determining the severity of a crime.
We can argue about what criteria we use in determining, and what should or should not be included, but not the process itself. This is no closer to "hate crimes" than stiffer penalties for those who kill cops as opposed to regular citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.