Posted on 05/06/2009 1:53:07 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Why is the press remaining mostly silent about the so-called "hate crimes law" that passed in the House on April 29? The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in a 249-175 vote (17 Republicans joined with 231 Democrats). These Democrats should have been tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment, equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment), and the prohibition of double jeopardy (no American can be prosecuted twice for the same crime or offense). If they had been, they would have known that this proposal, now headed for a Senate vote, violates all these constitutional provisions.
This bill would make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury (or try to) because of the victim's actual or PERCEIVED "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability" — as explained on the White House Web site, signaling the president's approval. A defendant convicted on these grounds would be charged with a "hate crime" in addition to the original crime, and would get EXTRA prison time.
The extra punishment applies only to these "protected classes." As Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. asked (Denver Post April 28): "Isn't every criminal act that harms another person a 'hate crime'? Then, regarding a Colorado "hate crime" law, one of 45 such state laws, Corry wrote: "When a Colorado gang engaged in an initiation ritual of specifically seeking out a "white woman" to rape, the Boulder prosecutor declined to pursue 'hate crime' charges." She was not enough of one of its protected classes.
Corey adds that the state "hate crime" law — like the newly expanded House of Representatives federal bill — "does not apply equally" (as the 14th Amendment requires), essentially instead "criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victim categories."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Nobody gets them overturned...
So called “Hate Crimes” are NOT thought crimes but are status laws. Such laws do deny the principle of equal protection. The closest analogue being those medieval laws protecting lords and high churchmen.
Actually, she was in a protected class (women) but they still declined to press charges. Funny how the women’s groups didn’t seem to want to push for a hate crime.
They are thought crimes when it comes to being prosecuted for preaching an anti-gay sermon and someone sues you for mental pain and suffering, and for inciting hate speech.
They are status crimes. A certain status(i.e. Sodomites) receive extra protection. The same preacher you are talking about would not be charged for preaching against a straight White Male father of two.
Get a big enough majority in Congress and appoint enough judges and the Constitution enters the realm of Quaint.
Look, I know what you are saying. I can see both descriptions of these laws being true. I can see how they can be viewed as ‘hate crimes’, ‘thought crimes’ and government-defined protected class laws. I think people label them as different things depending on their attack strategy opposing them.
Bottom line, no matter how you label and perceive them, in the end they are unconstitutional as they violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and create classes of government-defined people that are ‘more equal’ than others.
Response: You are absolutely correct.
Yeah, all of it except the part that really matters when those in power see it as their right to rule the rest of us, at any cost. Oh, that part may be viewed and propagandized as being the most quaint, but about 85 million people would disagree rather strenously. That's the path we're headed down at a frightening rate.
In fact the more I think about it even though my states senators are sick degenerates I’m still going to write them opposing such laws. The very essence of a Republic being equal application of the laws.
Mine are both libs and I sent a letter to each requesting they vote against this for three separate reasons.
See my #10.
You don’t even need a majority of gun owners. Note that the percentage of the population that actually fought the Brits was about 3%; only about 1/3 actively wanted independence, 1/3 were Loyalists and the other 1/3 didn’t care much either way. Determined minorities are unusually effective. The Obamunists should be aware of that, and that the “minority” that you and I are speaking of isn’t so minor.
This is all about Islam like reinterpreting everything that you and I say. What you say will go through a machine and you will be forced to admit to saying to their talking points.
It’s lawyer clever lying crap and lying jury tweaking and opinioning. (Not who votes but who counts the vote).
Every loser lawyer will resort to lying and inciting others to accept softer progressed versions of the truth. The “genius” of this dunce is what liberals revel in, their antechrist hopeful Messiah voice of the world conning the world. He ain’t gona con but himself and them, but so be it, it’s what they believe like little gollums, with no brain behind the power, little young Aladins wasting their three wishes to the lamp for good looks before death.
Republicants have decided to take Democrate talking point and not Conservatives. They are too busy infighting while not seeing their noose tightened around their necks via this device.
If there is a serious attempt to confiscate guns, the GPS “painting” of every address will come in handy for UAV targeting. It will only have to happen a couple of times. The super hi-tech capabilities used against the AQ will be turned against domestic opposition.
What does the Constitution have to do with anything now being done by this administration and this Congress? Soon enough we can add the Supreme Court to that. Does anyone think we can win back the House next year? Can we outvote ACORN with its new $billions and its DoJ backing?
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.