Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are There Separate Laws for the Protected Federal Class?
1/10/11 | dagogo redux

Posted on 01/10/2011 10:26:43 PM PST by dagogo redux

The news and discussions flowing out of the AZ killings has raised a question for me, one I hope some of you can help me answer.

I saw repeated references to a special set of laws pertaining to the murder or the attempted murder of Federal Officials and Federal Employees. I am wondering how this status as a "protected" class got started, and how deeply it has spread.

Is a drive-by shooting a different sort of crime, with different legal proceedings and different sentencing guidelines, if an "innocent bystander" victim happens to be an off-duty mail clerk working for the Forestry Service, compared to, say, an off-duty stock boy working for Albertsons?

Do Federal "public servants" get security guards paid for with tax-payer money, as opposed to other non-government "public servants" - say, those in the very dangerous mental health field - who must pay for their own security?

Is this another example of a two class system of citizens, where the murder of those in the privileged class counts for more than those in the other class? Is this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

I hope some of you in the know can answer this for me.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: chat; discrimination; federal; giffords; laws; vanity

1 posted on 01/10/2011 10:26:48 PM PST by dagogo redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Yes, it is more serious to kill a Federal employee if charged in Federal court. I suspect with many laws it is the interpretation of the way the law has been written. I would guess it was written specifically to deal with a Federal employee engaged in official business but as we saw with the DC sniper case it has been used to cover any Federal employee.

I do not favor any law that treats any victim differently based on employment, race, sexual preference, etc etc. I believe Judges should be able to sentence based on the facts before them and not any special quality of the victim but unfortunately congress has felt the need many times to impose extraordinary sentences for certain crimes.

However, it does not give me heartburn to see any violent criminal thrown under the jail for harming another human being. This young man will never see the light of day but there are many in law enforcement (myself included) who would agree with you that all victims should be treated equally and the Judge and jury should be able to decide the fate of the accused based on the specific circumstances of each case.


2 posted on 01/10/2011 10:39:18 PM PST by volunbeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

If my dog bites the postal carrier, can I be charged with a federal crime?


3 posted on 01/10/2011 10:43:58 PM PST by smokingfrog (Do all the talking you want, but do what I tell you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

In court and certainly in the press this is true. Notice in this case the murder of a Bush appointed presumably GOP Federal judge is a distant secondary interest to the injuring of a Dem legislator.

As for the common people killed, the press cares not a whit for or about them.


4 posted on 01/10/2011 10:44:37 PM PST by JLS (Democrats: People who won't even let you enjoy an unseasonably warm winter day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Tax cheat Rangle proves that there is.


5 posted on 01/10/2011 10:49:26 PM PST by NoLibZone (Homosexuals oppose diversity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
I saw repeated references to a special set of laws pertaining to the murder or the attempted murder of Federal Officials and Federal Employees. I am wondering how this status as a "protected" class got started, and how deeply it has spread.

You can get a Federal death penalty for killing a Federal poultry inspector. They passed that law ~10 years ago and 40 other obscure Federal jobs were included. Meaning, you kill that Federal dude, and the Feds with go after you with the death penalty

Libs are anti death penalty except when you kill a high muckety muck Federal dude

6 posted on 01/10/2011 10:49:54 PM PST by dennisw (- - - -He who does not economize will have to agonize - - - - - Confucius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

7 posted on 01/10/2011 10:53:10 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (0bamanomics: Punish Success, Reward Failure. Destroying America is the point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
Is this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

The equal protection clause is not the egalitarian protection clause. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the equal protection clause does not prohibit the establishment of classes, nor does it require "treating things that are different in law or fact as the same."

Granted, the 14th Amendment was never property ratified in the first place, but that is another matter altogether.

8 posted on 01/10/2011 10:53:40 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
Is a drive-by shooting a different sort of crime, with different legal proceedings and different sentencing guidelines, if an "innocent bystander" victim happens to be an off-duty mail clerk working for the Forestry Service, compared to, say, an off-duty stock boy working for Albertsons?

Based on the AZ federal murder case hinging on whether the judge was there just to say "hello" or there to discussion official business, I have to say since both are off duty in your scenario, they'd be treated the same.

Do Federal "public servants" get security guards paid for with tax-payer money, as opposed to other non-government "public servants" - say, those in the very dangerous mental health field - who must pay for their own security?

There's capitol police, but generally a protection detail isn't provided to congressional members, unlike for a president. Security can be requested and local police can provide security for an event. I believe in those cases the congressperson's office would pay.

Is this another example of a two class system of citizens, where the murder of those in the privileged class counts for more than those in the other class?

We're seeing federal charges because Congress decided to craft laws making it a criminal to kill federal employees while they're engaged in official duties, for example. The shooter will likely be charged for the murdered civilians under AZ state law.

Is this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

I don't know if it's been testing in court but it does make you wonder about the equality of victims. Is the judge's life really worth more or less only due to his job and his motive for being at that location? What does that say about us as a nation? It's a bit like "hate crime" statutes. I don't really like what it says about our nation but Congress obviously wanted to discourage people from being targeted sole based on their gov't employment.

9 posted on 01/10/2011 10:54:34 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

I think you just posted a great argument for Americans since we don’t believe in the UK royalty nonsense.


10 posted on 01/10/2011 10:56:40 PM PST by taxtruth (Don't end the fed,jail the fed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Duh!


11 posted on 01/10/2011 10:57:14 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
The same should be considered when referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Some Congressmen have state they are gonna start carrying their own firearms, ie into Federal Buildings.

However, as a mere peasant, you cannot, keep in mind DC vs Heller, upheld that animal farm belief.

12 posted on 01/10/2011 10:59:33 PM PST by Palter (If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

The intent is to prevent the gov. employee from being the victim of anti-government violence. It isn’t unreasonable on the face of it if the attack is also an attack on the government or a policy. But it probably is not as limited as one would think.


13 posted on 01/10/2011 11:05:51 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
Are There Separate Laws for the Protected Federal Class?

It depends who belongs to that protected federal class.

Look at it this way. Obama called for a national moment of silence just a few days after a federal judge was killed and a congresswoman wounded in Tucson.

After a Muslim jihadist killed and wounded 43 soldiers at Ft Hood only a year ago, there was no such national remembrance ceremony announced by the Obama administration. Just another day to them.

14 posted on 01/10/2011 11:09:20 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (My baloney has a first name, it's DEMOCRAT; my baloney has a second name, it's PARTY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Good Point.


15 posted on 01/10/2011 11:13:57 PM PST by Loud Mime (Study the Constitution, while we still have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

“As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the equal protection clause does not prohibit the establishment of classes, nor does it require “treating things that are different in law or fact as the same.” “

What is the background for this decision? Did it involve a complaint over Civil Rights?

The concept of “Civil Rights” involves different legal treatment for different ethnic groups. For example, Holder’s Justice Dept dropped a complaint concerning the Black Panther’s intimidation of White voters at a Philadelphia polling place on the grounds that “Civil rights” were only intended to protect Black people.


16 posted on 01/10/2011 11:16:07 PM PST by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
No one in the federal government deserves protection because the government has no interest in protecting the people but it does have an interest in protecting itself to stay in power.It's very simple,the us government is a dying dinosaur that has destroyed a nation that was great because it became GREEDY.
17 posted on 01/10/2011 11:28:44 PM PST by taxtruth (Don't end the fed,jail the fed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; taxtruth
How is this different in any fundamental way from a law whose intent is to prevent a Crip from being the victim of anti-Crip violence, or a woman from being the victim of anti-woman violence, or a well-dressed-white-guy walking down the street from being the victim of anti-well-dressed-white-guys violence?

I tend to agree with taxtruth several posts down - this has all the hallmarks of organized crime protecting their own with their own special brand of “justice”. That's why this caught my eye in the news reports in the first place. I can't believe this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Will the proposed law or amendment I've heard about that would require all laws to apply equally to citizens and Congress-critters supercede this monstrosity, and will it extend throughout the Federal Class?

18 posted on 01/10/2011 11:49:24 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman

The SC has turned into the SUPREME JOKE in America.


19 posted on 01/10/2011 11:50:28 PM PST by taxtruth (Don't end the fed,jail the fed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
I also cringed at the thought of a protected federal class, being protected "just because."

However...

I can understand the special circumstance of killing a federal officer (not unionized government worker) who is performing his duty, such as the cliche of moonshiners killing the "revenoor" who comes to shut down your still, or killing the FBI agent who is trying to apprehend a criminal.

But not your average run-of-the-mill civil servant.

-PJ

20 posted on 01/10/2011 11:53:48 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

I can’t remember the name of the Old Greek nor qoute him corectly but the jist of what he said is .................................... “Your laws are like fine spider webs, they will catch the small fry and do them unto death but the large and powerful will pass through them as if they do not exist.” .......... It’s several thousand years later and things haven’t changed.


21 posted on 01/11/2011 12:22:16 AM PST by fella (.He that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough." Pv.28:19')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

I believe that these laws date from after the Civil War when the Klan and other unreconciled Southerners carried out numerous attacks on federal officials and employees.


22 posted on 01/11/2011 12:50:57 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

It’s important to note that these charges simply reflect the jurisdictional difference between federal employees and others. He will later be charged by the state for murder and attempted murder, it’s just going to be split that way to ensure conviction in one of the venues. They could have charged him federally for all the crimes, but splitting it up gives them virtual certainty of conviction on a murder charge.


23 posted on 01/11/2011 2:00:52 AM PST by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Some people have more equal protection under the law then others. You wouldn’t understand. It’s a vocabulary thing. You must be under the impression that some unknowable document written 200 years ago applies. This is why you are not a member of the bar, or a lawyer.

/sarcasm


24 posted on 01/11/2011 2:09:09 AM PST by Leisler (They always lie, and have for so much and for so long, that they no longer know what about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

In the 80s and 90s there was a push to apply the death penalty to as many crimes as possible. The federal government has no jurisdiction over the murder of ordinary folks so they applied the death penalty to murders where they had jurisdiction.

So while there are indeed two different sets of laws it is not the result of a conspiracy, just the result of the lobbying of death penalty advocates.


25 posted on 01/11/2011 2:13:30 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
These laws arose with federal Marshals, the Whiskey Rebellion, so-called "Reconstruction," the F.B.I., the murder of Leo Ryan in 1977, even The Warren Commission, etc., and no one thought or rightly believed it expedient to challenge such federal statutes on various constitutional grounds.

The underlying "compelling state interest," long ago ruled by the federal judiciary as equivalent to "clear and present danger," is given the same weight as murder of law enforcement personnel.

Unless someone successfully challenges something as exceeding the equal protection clause, to cite one hypothetical situation, the courts don't strike down such protections.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so it may be someone with standing did challenge such protections after all, perhaps long ago and on more than one occasion, and the courts acquiesced.

26 posted on 01/11/2011 3:55:08 AM PST by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

They aren’t subject to the health insurance laws they’ve pressed upon the taxpayer, they are exempted from TSA sexual assault, when caught committing crimes they get a slap on the wrist...


27 posted on 01/11/2011 4:24:50 AM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

IMO, anyone who questions whether or not the political class live under a different set of rules than the rest of us hasn’t been paying attention lately. I think laws that make it somehow more of a crime to kill a cop than a taxi driver are obscene.


28 posted on 01/11/2011 6:44:36 AM PST by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

“The federal government has no jurisdiction over the murder of ordinary folks...”

No there is actually. It’s 18 USC Section 1111.


29 posted on 01/11/2011 7:32:48 AM PST by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

The state charges will come years from now. In the meanwhile, the prosecution will be PR gold for the Justice Department and an opportunity for preening by Holder, Obama, and their media allies.


30 posted on 01/11/2011 9:41:33 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

Yes, that still applies only in particular circumstances like on a military base, in a post office, a national park or a crime that crosses state borders.


31 posted on 01/11/2011 10:08:08 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Americans are all represented by their government and have a vested interest in protecting its employees from anti-government violence. There are crazy people who believe that by attacking the employee they are exercising their political rights. Hence such laws.

Most of your response is not applicable to this issue and seems to be more taking an opportunity to misunderstand and rhetoricize than clarify.


32 posted on 01/11/2011 5:04:32 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Perhaps I’m still missing something here: There is clearly a division under the law between Federal officials & employees on the one hand, and the common citizens on the other.

The former are referred to as “Public Servants,” a moniker that is far beyond euphemism these days. This country was founded, if it’s not too strident in tone to say so, with We The People as the ultimate head of the government, “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” and all that silly, quaint old jazz.

If We The People are those for whom this government exists, and if the Federal officials and employees are our “servants,” how has it come to pass that the murder of the servant is more grievous than that of the master?

Your screen name is certainly appropriate given your tone. Must be great to be you.


33 posted on 01/12/2011 9:40:22 AM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Yes you are missing something. There are lunatics who believe that fighting the government is equivalent to attacking some random employee. So these laws are intended to curb that urge. These attacks are not directed at any particular person but the government as symbolized by said person.

Mixing political soundbites or euphemism with the original philosophy at the Founding won’t take you very far in supplying the missing either.

And yes my life has been blessed in many respects and for that I am thankful.


34 posted on 01/13/2011 5:04:39 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Well, one of us is still missing it, Mr. arrogant. What exact “original philosophy at the Founding” are you referring to? Please cite your source, oh blessed one.

Your argument is silly, and does nothing to establish a special case for Federal employees. There are all sorts of lunatics.

For instance, by analogy (though I would have reversed the order of the sentence to make the argument more coherent): There may be lunatics who believe that fighting the Capitalists is equivalent to attacking some random employee, therefore the need to enact a whole separate set of laws “intended to curb that urge.”

Or: There may be lunatics who believe that fighting the Church is equivalent to attacking some random parishioner, hence the need for a whole separate set of laws “intended to curb that urge.”

Or: There may also be lunatics who believe that fighting the Steelers is equivalent to attaching some random fan, hence the need for laws “intended to curb that urge.”

Please curb yourself if you can't present better “soundbites and euphemisms.”

I expect better at FR. Sheesh.

35 posted on 01/13/2011 9:32:00 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

The Federalist Papers comes as close as it gets as to the philosophy of the Founders. It has none of the rhetorical devices you quoted or political slogans.

Capitalism does not represent the American People as the federal government does so your analogy is, once again, vacuous. Neither does a Church. The government is a unique institution and engenders unique hatreds and obsessions.

Your expectations appear to be satisfied by random ravings.


36 posted on 01/13/2011 10:08:13 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

The Federalist Papers was not a unified “philosophy” from the Founders, but represented disparate views, and those disparate views were then strongly opposed by the Anti-Federalists in their own papers. Do you not know this, or are you simply leaving it out?

But even if I accept your lame counter about what the Holy Federalist Papers have none of, tell me what specific citation they DO have that postulates a separate status and set of laws protecting Federal employees. Quote the Founding Fathers’ original declaration supporting the view that, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I’d like chapter and verse from the Federalist papers, and then I’d like to know if this was universally held amongst the other Founders, and some writings from all the major players backing that up.


37 posted on 01/14/2011 12:01:34 AM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Actually two thirds of the Federalist were written by Hamilton with the vast majority of the rest by Madison. Jay only wrote a few. And it does represent the unified philosophy of the Founders and is the definitive exposition of the meaning of the Constitution. Madison, at that time, was even more Hamiltonian than Hamilton and Jay was always a close ally to Hamilton.

There was no need to reference the Antis since they were the LOSERS and it was because of their lies and misrepresentations as to what the Constitution meant that the Federalist had to be written in the first place.

You seem to mistake a political philosophy with law making. There is nothing within the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from passing the laws you object to nor in the Federalist. Certainly the authority to pass laws regarding federal property and/or employees is there.

As far the quote from Animal Farm which you misuse probably because you don’t understand that the Constitution actually was passed only because the Slavers demanded that it treat “some animals as more equal than others”. Had it treated their slaves as equal Slavers would have defeated it. That is where most of the Antis came from anyway. The others were generally crooks like George Clinton whose power within the state governments was to be reduced by a central government. There isn’t one paper in the bunch worth wasting your time with.


38 posted on 01/14/2011 12:49:24 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Your arrogance grows more tiresome the more you disclose the biases behind it. It perfectly mimics the arrogance of the bloated, increasingly tyrannical Federal government you admire so, having grown from the flaws in Hamilton’s and Madison’s vision. We have nothing more to say together.


39 posted on 01/14/2011 10:49:00 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Wow, you are an absolute idiot. Must be a Fed.


40 posted on 01/14/2011 11:08:55 PM PST by servantoftheservant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

You had nothing to say anyway but your unwillingness to argue with history seems to be a step forward.


41 posted on 02/02/2011 5:56:35 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: servantoftheservant

So when the Klan (the terror arm of the Democrat Party) made a point of murdering Freedman’s Bureau employees, state representatives and a US Congressman and then intimidated grand juries and juries so that these killers would not be convicted even if indicted they could just go free?

Don’t think so.

But before the feds stepped in thousands of Blacks, Republicans and federal employees were murdered all across the South. A law protecting federal employees brought some justice where none existed.

But one cannot expect the muddle-headed or those on the side of the murderers to understand.


42 posted on 02/02/2011 6:02:06 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Yawn.


43 posted on 02/02/2011 11:53:03 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson