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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/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.

(*) 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.

And they are all unconstitutional.

No use arguing about it. Power will continue to do whatever it can get
away with.

We will continue to revoke federal policy rule, inform juries and
return the courts to common law.

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), 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.

I agree with your conclusion but not on how you arrive at it.

So, do you think that hate crimes are constitutional? I don't see your
argument wrt the constitutionality, but rather, an appeal to common
sense.

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),
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.


And they are all unconstitutional.

On Oct 31, 10:19 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:

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).


(min-rant)
Glad you agree there are "special classes"....a premise the liberal
(progressive) proponents desire to break up society into such
"classes", claim to treat each "fairly and equally" (but differently).
This makes up the very divisions we see in much of society today.
(/min-rant)

Your fallacy was trying to compare driving regulations and Veterans's
benefits.

(*) 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).


False. Murder has a prosecutor providing evidence of the "intent or
malice aforethought" TO commit the crime itself (or manslaughter - an
unintentional killing).

A so-called "hate crime" attempts to narrowly
focus the "defendant's belief " to commit the crime is based on the
person's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation,
national origin, or ancestry".

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.


Ah, so now you invoke a "Two Wrongs Make a Right" fallacy, eh?

I disagree with hate crimes in general. However, the state(s) have the
authority to include such legislation in their state laws (based on
their constitution). Your little fallacy doesn't refute my comments
wrt federal intrusion into state crimes nor double jeporady laws.

A) Do you think that the hate crimes laws create special classes of people?

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.

States have hate crimes laws too.

And they are equally repugnant. But that is a topic for a different thread.

So, do you think that hate crimes are constitutional?

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.

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.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:25:33 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


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.


Can not agree here. There seems to be a very good reason a "Premeditation
Crimes Bill" can not exist. Premeditation can apply to acts of virtue (eg
planning) as well as vice. It is neutral until action is taken which is
why it seems to make sense to have it as a qualifier. The fact
premeditation can be used or chosen for good as well as bad qualifies the
action alone while the mental process alone remains neutral.

Hatred does not follow. It is not neutral. It immediately suggests a vice
and self evidence of the absence of a reasoned act. The state already can
consider this in criminal cases. Making a bill centered on hatred begins
to separate it as a legal consideration independent of any associated
action. A very very wrong and unreasonable direction.

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.


The question is how much more likely can this happen?