Posted on 06/04/2020 7:36:08 PM PDT by RandFan
But how is lynching defined? I go to the article’s link to the House bill and get this:
LYNCHING.
(a) Offense.—Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Ҥ 250. Lynching
“Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.”.
I can never find out what a new federal law says, or a bill proposes, because the text is never given, only that some section is going to be amended or replaced.
Where do the Republicans stand on this bill?
We had an Attorney General named Lynch.
And i think Pennsylvania has a LEO named Outlaw.
And i think they are both black. Why do we allow these people to have such UGLY NAMES?
It is past time to address this culture of violence.
‘ : : ‘ /:/:/:/
What i just said here is less stupid than than most of what the MSM is pushing these days.
#4. Re “ Is there a lot of lynching going on these days”?
Yes, of Republicans, conservatives, Pres. Trump and family and advisors, flag-waving, gun owning American patriots, and people of faith, in academia and the media as well as by the Democrat Party..
Hell. As a white conservative Jewish American patriotic male, I’m a target.
Ma! Need more ammo!
From related threads…
Patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific powers to make probably most peacetime penal laws in the books. In other words, most federal civil rights laws are unconstitutional imo, serving only to help corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers get themselves reelected by promising unsuspecting, low-information voters new constitutionally indefensible federal protections.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), had reflected on the fed's constitutionally limited powers when explaining the limits of that amendment's protections.
"... our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See bottom half of third column.)
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936. (Possible server certificate problem.)
Again, Bingham was pointing out that 14A gives Congress the express power to make laws that strengthen rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, the states having never amended the Constitution to prohibit lynching for example.
The bottom line is that patriots need to be ever-vigilant of the feds by questioning every action of the corrupt feds to make sure that each action is reasonably justified under a constitutionally express federal power.
A federal law prohibiting lynching would ultimately require the states to first appropriately amend the Constitution before Congress would have the express power to make such a law imo.
Otherwise, laws not reasonably justifiable under an express constitutional power serve only to help career lawmakers get themselves reelected, unconstitutionally expanding the already unconstitutionally big federal government's powers by making such laws.
In fact, the only enumerated race and sex protections that the states have given the feds the express constitutional power make for example, are limited to voting rights issues, evidenced by the 15th and 19th Amendments.
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
So probably most of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its titles are unconstitutional imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government Democrats and RINOs home in November!
Supporting PDJT with new patriot federal and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy, [...]” —Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"13th Amendment, Section 1:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"It’s politically correct, under the Democratic Party and its tyrant judges, to use your voting power to make your fellow citizens involuntary servants." —me
"The Democratic elite define a "pro-choice" democracy as being able to vote for your preferred master." —me
"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment not only effectively politically repealed the 3/4 state supermajority requirement of the Constitution’s Article V for ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution imo, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution now prevailing under Democratic judicial tyranny, but also consider this. That amendment also effectively nullified Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers along with the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes. Belonging to a political party means that you are a subject, not a member.” —me
"Patriots need to support PDJT in demanding that Congress moves "April 15" tax day to the day before election day." —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
“But Paul has said he is concerned it could allow more minor altercations to be punishable as lynchings.”
Yep, free speech will be considered lynching. All it takes is one activist judge.
Hate Crime law is capricious law.
It wouldn’t have saved Epstein...
Is there a lot of lynching going on these days?
By the looks of things, clearly not enough.
Pelosi here we come!!! Lol
I stand with Rand. I have always opposed hate crimes. You hang someone its murder you go to prison. It doesn’t matter why.
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.