Skip to comments.Alan Sears Commends President Bush For Promise to Veto “hate crimes” Legislation
Posted on 05/03/2007 9:18:05 PM PDT by epow
ADF President Alan Sears commends President Bush for promise to veto hate crimes legislation White House states that legislation is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable Thursday, May 03, 2007, 10:16 AM (MST) | ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. Alliance Defense Fund President, CEO, and General Counsel Alan Sears commended President Bush Thursday for his promise to veto H.R. 1592, the federal hate crimes legislation, if it reaches his desk.
All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice under the law, said Sears. The president rightly recognized that this bill was not only unnecessary, but very likely unconstitutional. We strongly commend the President for taking a bold stand on principle and for the Constitution by promising to veto this potentially free-speech-chilling bill.
In a statement released this morning, the Executive Office of the President said the following:
The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill .
H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victims race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly .
We are heartened by the fact that the President has agreed to honor our nations constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law, said Sears.
A copy of the White Houses statement can be read at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1592sap-h.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.
And it couldn't be for a better cause, undoing the Democrats' unconstitutional "Hate Crime" bill which is a crime itself.
The President gets tremendous credit for opposing this bad legislation.
It is about time he started using his vetoes. Now he just needs to go on the hard offensive with Iraq and the War on Terror. I feel for him but it doesn’t change the fact that he has allowed by not using his position fully to rally support for the War an entry point for the left to inch slowly forward towards defeat. That said the Hate Crimes bill is stupid and symptomatic of a culture that does not understand substance from intention. It is one phony bill out of many phony bills from authoritarian bureaucrats who don’t see any limits to the nuisance and nuance of their power.
“A “hate-crimes” bill which Sen. Ted. Kennedy has been attempting to pass for six years is about to be voted on in the House of Representatives. It is supposedly designed to stop acts of violence and verbal abuse against people in a newly protected class, i.e. homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals and others.
Under its provision, the killing of 32 students at Virginia Tech would not be a “hate crime,” because the victims were not members of this class. If that sounds foolish, it is because the true intent of the legislation is not to punish what is already illegal. It is ultimately designed to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality. This subterfuge became clear when Republicans attempted to add a simple amendment protecting the rights of people of faith. The amendment, put forward by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., read: “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.”
Guess what? Every Democrat voted against it, and the measure failed. What is at stake here is freedom of speech and the expression of conscience. Without a huge outcry from the public expressed to the House, Senate and White House, it will become law.
The hate-crimes bill is another outrageous attempt to silence opposition to the political agenda of homosexual activists, including gay adoption, the redefinition of marriage, homosexual propaganda in the schools, etc.”
End of Dobson statement.
Unfortunately the so-called hate Crimes bill passed the House tonight. Fortunately Bush has promised to veto it. We can urge him by calls and email to follow through on his promise, and I believe he will. If this bill becomes law Christians and others who disapprove of homosexual practices can be and will be prosecuted and imprisoned for years just for speaking out against sexual perversion.
How in the world did Democrats win in ‘06? Did they find a new way to cheat? They would be the first to find a way. With the population aging, maybe we have a record number of dead people voting Democrat.
How in the world did Democrats win in 06? Did they find a new way to cheat? They would be the first to find a way. With the population aging, maybe we have a record number of dead people voting Democrat.
All of the “rigged election” claims disappear when THEY win.
Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.
Guess what? Every Democrat voted against it, and the measure failed."
Mr. President, VETO THIS BILL!!
The two biggest reasons for their victories are:
1) Their successful attempt at tricking politically unsavvy conservatives into thinking that there are conservatives DEMs.
2) The media lies regarding Iraq and GOP corruption fooled moderates, independents into voting for them.
Just the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary committee killed the Pence amendment. If you live in their state feel free to write them.
Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, D-VERMONT
Edward M. Kennedy D-MASSACHUSETTS
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. D-DELAWARE
Herb Kohl D-WISCONSIN
Dianne Feinstein D-CALIFORNIA
Russell D. Feingold D-WISCONSIN
Charles E. Schumer D-NEW YORK
Richard J. Durbin D-ILLINOIS
Benjamin L. Cardin D-MARYLAND
Sheldon Whitehouse D-RHODE ISLAND
Correction, twenty Democrats on committee apparently voted down Pence’s amendment, but the .gov site only lists 10 on the Judiciary committee?
None of them are from my state. Except for the portion of the Atlanta metro area inside the 285 perimeter, GA is too conservative to send defeatocrats like those to the Senate.
I haven't found anything yet regarding the bill's situation in the Senate (thatpesky thing called work has had me tied up today) except that it's almost certain to pass there too. That's why I think it's urgent that we insist on Bush vetoing it when it comes to his desk, because it's very likely that it will.
I think Bush would almost be better off not wasting political capital vetoing it, as it will be overturned by the federal courts anyway. However, a few clauses may turn out to be constitutional.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) made a great legal argument to not back the bill:
"Federal efforts to criminalize hate crimes cannot survive the federalism standards articulated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence and specifically ruled that Congress has no power under the commerce clause or the 14th Amendment over 'non-economic violent criminal conduct' that does not cross state lines."
I’ve been hard on President Bush lately, but he’s been on a roll recently.
Keep it up, Mr. President.
But the idea that the hate crime law would be thrown out by the USSC if it's not vetoed leads me to wonder if the Democrats know in advance that their bill won't pass muster with the USSC, but they voted for it anyway to show the homosexual lobby that they really meant well.
For liberals, it's all about "feelings" and good intentions. To them, just wanting to do something they consider good is morally equivalent to actually doing it.
"I can honestly say that I was never affected by the question of the success of an undertaking. If I felt it was the right thing to do, I was for it regardless of the possible outcome."
I don't think it's strictly a liberal thing. There have been several attempts by conservatives to regulate pornography that have treaded on the same ground as previous SCOTUS decisions to overturn. California, where I live, repeatedly brings constitutionally unsound initiatives to ballot from all sides of the political spectrum. Almost to the point that a sound initiative is the exception to the rule. Certainly liberals are more often guilty of letting wishful thinking overcome good sense, but just because someone has the correct political orientation doesn't guarantee that they got there through sound thinking.