| |
 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » USA (Constitution) Politics Forum » Federal Hate Crimes Legislation is Unconstitutional... |
|
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Franks... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:47:04 -0700, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: This is really getting pathetic. The feds don't even have the authority
to /enact/ such legislation independent of the prohibitions.
Keep saying that frankeloon
So we can keep laughing at you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Info Junkie... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net>
wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR200...
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor), Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class > cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Driving regulations and Veteran benefits: Apples and oranges
One is a state law that imposes criteria to be able to drive on roads,
the other is a reward for contractual obligations fulfilled at the
national level.
IMHO, there should be no "enhanced punishment" in retaliation for any
group, nor "progressive" taxation.
Quote: (*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes statute.
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
(Admittedly not having read the article)
IMHO, "hate crime" legislation is akin to "thought police" and as
constitutional as someone performing divination of a "hanging chad"
from a Floridian election balliot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Info Junkie... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 8:52 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net>
wrote:
Quote: Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR200....
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor), Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class > >>cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Driving regulations and Veteran benefits: Apples and oranges
One is a state law that imposes criteria to be able to drive on roads,
the other is a reward for contractual obligations fulfilled at the
national level.
IMHO, there should be no "enhanced punishment" in retaliation for any
group, nor "progressive" taxation.
Convince a majority of your elected officials, and you can get your way.
Are you referring to where I wrote "IMHO" or the fallacy you wrote wrt
driving regulations and Veteran's benefits?
Quote: (*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes statute..
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
(Admittedly not having read the article)
IMHO, "hate crime" legislation is akin to "thought police" and as
constitutional as someone performing divination of a "hanging chad"
from a Floridian election balliot.
It's no more of a problem than laws which distinguish manslaughter from
murder based on the thoughts of the perpetrator.
"Murder is usually further divided into the first degree, which
typically involves a premeditated intent to kill, and the second
degree, which typically does not involve a premeditated intent to
kill. Manslaughter typically involves an unintentional killing that
resulted from a person's criminal negligence or reckless disregard for
human life."
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
Unlike premediated murder (or manslughter), "Hate crimes are based, at
least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding a particular status
of the victim." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
The "thoughts" of a "defendant's belief " to commit a crime would be
allegedly based on the person's race*, religion, color, disability,
sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry"
*Side note: Where's Mr LeChevalier? He claims there no such thing as
"race".
Concrete evidence determines the difference between the two whereas
"hate crime" legislation requires little more than subjective claims
of "the defendant's belief regarding a particular status of the
victim."
ITM, the so-called "hate crime legislation" is merely the further
intrusion by the federal government into state laws it may not agree
with the outcome. IMNSHO, this only allows the federal government to
wiggle around double jeporady laws. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Josh Rosenbluth... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor), Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class =
cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
(*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes statute.
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Josh Rosenbluth... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Info Junkie wrote:
Quote: On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR200...
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor), Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class =
cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Driving regulations and Veteran benefits: Apples and oranges
One is a state law that imposes criteria to be able to drive on roads,
the other is a reward for contractual obligations fulfilled at the
national level.
IMHO, there should be no "enhanced punishment" in retaliation for any
group, nor "progressive" taxation.
Convince a majority of your elected officials, and you can get your way.
Quote: (*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes statute.
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
(Admittedly not having read the article)
IMHO, "hate crime" legislation is akin to "thought police" and as
constitutional as someone performing divination of a "hanging chad"
from a Floridian election balliot.
It's no more of a problem than laws which distinguish manslaughter from
murder based on the thoughts of the perpetrator.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:47:04 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/
AR2009102904380.html
This is really getting pathetic. The feds don't even have the authority
to /enact/ such legislation independent of the prohibitions.
I agree with your conclusion but not on how you arrive at it.
As you know these types of bills have been passed at state level for many
years now. 'Special class' also addresses the issue of the very special
'legal person'. All supported by both parties. So this is not Obama
centric.
Your argument here forces a 'class' animosity. The classes now being as I
understand it: "race, color, religion, or nation origin, gender, gender
identity, sexual orientation, and disability". Animosity can too easily
be directed towards people who are seen as fitting these classes (who
doesn't?). They, as I see it, are not the problem here. They and the
attached emotions are being used as human shields.
My issue is government determining Hate. Class irrelevant.
The justification usually used for this quite spectacular government
ability is the near seamless consistency, the argument goes, with
determining premeditation of a crime. This position seems to hold up
only superficially. For instance, the absence of a "Premeditation Crimes
Bill" kicks this off.
The very dark age side to this is hate, as determined by the state, being
made a crime without need for any relevant action of the accused. Here
'premeditation' can not possibly follow because it needs the relevant
action to give the word meaning. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Josh Rosenbluth... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Info Junkie wrote:
Quote: On Oct 31, 8:52 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR200...
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor), Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class =
cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Driving regulations and Veteran benefits: Apples and oranges
One is a state law that imposes criteria to be able to drive on roads,
the other is a reward for contractual obligations fulfilled at the
national level.
IMHO, there should be no "enhanced punishment" in retaliation for any
group, nor "progressive" taxation.
Convince a majority of your elected officials, and you can get your way.
Are you referring to where I wrote "IMHO" or the fallacy you wrote wrt
driving regulations and Veteran's benefits?
IMHO (and I had no fallacy - all cases would fail under Hentoff's
reasoning).
Quote: (*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes statute.
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
(Admittedly not having read the article)
IMHO, "hate crime" legislation is akin to "thought police" and as
constitutional as someone performing divination of a "hanging chad"
from a Floridian election balliot.
It's no more of a problem than laws which distinguish manslaughter from
murder based on the thoughts of the perpetrator.
"Murder is usually further divided into the first degree, which
typically involves a premeditated intent to kill, and the second
degree, which typically does not involve a premeditated intent to
kill. Manslaughter typically involves an unintentional killing that
resulted from a person's criminal negligence or reckless disregard for
human life."
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
Unlike premediated murder (or manslughter), "Hate crimes are based, at
least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding a particular status
of the victim." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
The "thoughts" of a "defendant's belief " to commit a crime would be
allegedly based on the person's race*, religion, color, disability,
sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry"
*Side note: Where's Mr LeChevalier? He claims there no such thing as
"race".
Concrete evidence determines the difference between the two whereas
"hate crime" legislation requires little more than subjective claims
of "the defendant's belief regarding a particular status of the
victim."
"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of
another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally
this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful
homicide (such as manslaughter"
The distinction between murder and manslaughter (intent or malice
aforethought) requires proving a subjective claim (just like a hate crime).
Quote: ITM, the so-called "hate crime legislation" is merely the further
intrusion by the federal government into state laws it may not agree
with the outcome. IMNSHO, this only allows the federal government to
wiggle around double jeporady laws.
States have hate crimes laws too.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Josh Rosenbluth... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ZerkonXXXX wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:47:04 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/
AR2009102904380.html
This is really getting pathetic. The feds don't even have the authority
to /enact/ such legislation independent of the prohibitions.
I agree with your conclusion but not on how you arrive at it.
As you know these types of bills have been passed at state level for many
years now. 'Special class' also addresses the issue of the very special
'legal person'. All supported by both parties. So this is not Obama
centric.
Your argument here forces a 'class' animosity. The classes now being as I
understand it: "race, color, religion, or nation origin, gender, gender
identity, sexual orientation, and disability". Animosity can too easily
be directed towards people who are seen as fitting these classes (who
doesn't?). They, as I see it, are not the problem here. They and the
attached emotions are being used as human shields.
My issue is government determining Hate. Class irrelevant.
The justification usually used for this quite spectacular government
ability is the near seamless consistency, the argument goes, with
determining premeditation of a crime. This position seems to hold up
only superficially. For instance, the absence of a "Premeditation Crimes
Bill" kicks this off.
I'm pretty sure all states distinguish between premeditated and
spontaneous crimes in the degree of the crime (e.g., degrees of murder
and manslaughter). They just don't label these statues "Premeditation
Crimes Bill" - they are there nonetheless.
Quote: The very dark age side to this is hate, as determined by the state, being
made a crime without need for any relevant action of the accused. Here
'premeditation' can not possibly follow because it needs the relevant
action to give the word meaning.
True - but such a law would be an unconstitutional abridgment of Free
Speech.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:43:21 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
<bondrock at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Quote: "Murder is usually further divided into the first degree, which
typically involves a premeditated intent to kill, and the second
degree, which typically does not involve a premeditated intent to
kill. Manslaughter typically involves an unintentional killing that
resulted from a person's criminal negligence or reckless disregard for
human life."
Quote: ITM, the so-called "hate crime legislation" is merely the further
intrusion by the federal government into state laws it may not agree
with the outcome. IMNSHO, this only allows the federal government to
wiggle around double jeporady laws.
If felonies can be, (and are) divided into
"Degrees"---one would think thats perfectly acecptable
to add a "degree" of motivation---same as you do if you
kill for profit vs passion or accident
As for your silly belief that states are
supreme---You'll need a bigger tin-hat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that
enjoy protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation
is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904380.html
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor)
Sounds fair to me.
Quote: Veterans benefits (special class = veterans)
Sounds fair to me.
Quote: driving regulations (special class over 16)
That is the domain of the states, feds have no just business meddling at
that level, even if we do twist reality to interpret 'driving
regulations' as equal protection. Clearly, it isn't, but whatever,
doesn't matter, not applicable here.
Quote: and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class =
cops.
Sounds fair to me.
Quote: Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Not according to the equal protection clause.
Explain to me how those people that don't belong to one of these special
classes enjoy the same protections as someone that does belong to one of
these special classes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Quote: Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that
enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR200...
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor), Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class =
cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Driving regulations and Veteran benefits: Apples and oranges
One is a state law that imposes criteria to be able to drive on roads,
the other is a reward for contractual obligations fulfilled at the
national level.
IMHO, there should be no "enhanced punishment" in retaliation for any
group, nor "progressive" taxation.
Convince a majority of your elected officials, and you can get your way.
(*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes statute.
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
(Admittedly not having read the article)
IMHO, "hate crime" legislation is akin to "thought police" and as
constitutional as someone performing divination of a "hanging chad"
from a Floridian election balliot.
It's no more of a problem than laws which distinguish manslaughter from
murder based on the thoughts of the perpetrator.
There's no special class here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Quote: Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:52 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that
enjoy
protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such legislation is
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR200...
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor),
Veterans
benefits (special class = veterans), driving regulations (special
class
= over 16), and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special
class =
cops. Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Driving regulations and Veteran benefits: Apples and oranges
One is a state law that imposes criteria to be able to drive on roads,
the other is a reward for contractual obligations fulfilled at the
national level.
IMHO, there should be no "enhanced punishment" in retaliation for any
group, nor "progressive" taxation.
Convince a majority of your elected officials, and you can get your way.
Are you referring to where I wrote "IMHO" or the fallacy you wrote wrt
driving regulations and Veteran's benefits?
IMHO (and I had no fallacy - all cases would fail under Hentoff's
reasoning).
(*) Hentoff brought up the last example, complaining that cops aren't
afforded as much protection as those covered by the hate crimes
statute.
I guess he forgot about the many laws out there targeted against cop
killers.
(Admittedly not having read the article)
IMHO, "hate crime" legislation is akin to "thought police" and as
constitutional as someone performing divination of a "hanging chad"
from a Floridian election balliot.
It's no more of a problem than laws which distinguish manslaughter from
murder based on the thoughts of the perpetrator.
"Murder is usually further divided into the first degree, which
typically involves a premeditated intent to kill, and the second
degree, which typically does not involve a premeditated intent to
kill. Manslaughter typically involves an unintentional killing that
resulted from a person's criminal negligence or reckless disregard for
human life."
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
Unlike premediated murder (or manslughter), "Hate crimes are based, at
least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding a particular status
of the victim." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
The "thoughts" of a "defendant's belief " to commit a crime would be
allegedly based on the person's race*, religion, color, disability,
sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry"
*Side note: Where's Mr LeChevalier? He claims there no such thing as
"race".
Concrete evidence determines the difference between the two whereas
"hate crime" legislation requires little more than subjective claims
of "the defendant's belief regarding a particular status of the
victim."
"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of
another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally
this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful
homicide (such as manslaughter"
The distinction between murder and manslaughter (intent or malice
aforethought) requires proving a subjective claim (just like a hate crime).
ITM, the so-called "hate crime legislation" is merely the further
intrusion by the federal government into state laws it may not agree
with the outcome. IMNSHO, this only allows the federal government to
wiggle around double jeporady laws.
States have hate crimes laws too.
And they are equally repugnant. But that is a topic for a different thread. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Josh Rosenbluth... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Hate crimes legislation creates 'special classes' of citizens that
enjoy protections above and beyond regular citizens. Such
legislation is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904380.html
If we accept Hentoff's reasoning, then every law which provides a
benefit or punishment to a "special class" would be unconstitutional.
That would include progressive taxation (special class = poor)
Sounds fair to me.
Veterans benefits (special class = veterans)
Sounds fair to me.
driving regulations (special class over 16)
That is the domain of the states, feds have no just business meddling at
that level, even if we do twist reality to interpret 'driving
regulations' as equal protection. Clearly, it isn't, but whatever,
doesn't matter, not applicable here.
Yes, it is. The equal protection clause explicitly applies to the states.
Quote: and enhanced punishment for cop killers (*) (special class = cops.
Sounds fair to me.
Of course, all of these are constitutional.
Not according to the equal protection clause.
Explain to me how those people that don't belong to one of these special
classes enjoy the same protections as someone that does belong to one of
these special classes.
Because virtually every law favors some type of person over another,
reading the equal protection clause as you do would result in the
absurdity of nullifying virtually all laws.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Forget your blanket statements, stick to the specifics of this discussion.
Let's try a simpler approach?
A) Do you think that the hate crimes laws create special classes of people?
B) Do you think the creation of special classes of people is within the
protections of "equal protection"?
Forget your absurdities.
Forget precedent.
Forget the supreme Court.
Forget all of your regular bag of games.
Let's discuss the core issues, man to man. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:50 am
|
|