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

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"

Peter Franks wrote:

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?

yes. However, within a class (e.g., race) all must be treated equally
(white, black, etc..)

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

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?


yes. However, within a class (e.g., race) all must be treated equally
(white, black, etc..)


So, we have the creation of artificial classes so that we can treat
people unequally, and then you say that within the class they must be
treated equally?

Is that correct?

yes. However, within a class (e.g., race) all must be treated equally
(white, black, etc..)

So, we have the creation of artificial classes so that we can treat
people unequally, and then you say that within the class they must be
treated equally?

Strabo wrote:

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.

Did you just argue that Veterans benefits and a minimum age to drive are
unconstitutional? Are you crazy?

On Nov 1, 8:17 am, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
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.

Curious: Do you believe in re-enforcing Citizen Grand Juries to
provide legal presentments?

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:50:15 -0700, Peter Franks
none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:

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

No more than classifying degrees of burglary or
homicide

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:07:45 -0700, Peter Franks
none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:

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.

The basis of hate crimes doesn't create a "class of
people"---it creates a "class" of motivation for the
crime

ANY crime predicated on hate--whether race, gender,
orientation, etc now can be prosecuted more
stringently.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Strabo wrote:

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.

Did you just argue that Veterans benefits and a minimum age to drive are
unconstitutional?  Are you crazy?

Each has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Veteran benefits are part of the government's contract with military
veterans. That's a separate issue.

The minimum age to drive is no different than the minimum age to do
anything else.

Children cannot exercise inherent rights. They must do as they're told
by their parents or through limitations by law. That's why they're
known as children.

See how simple it is?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:18:50 -0500, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Except, the statutes do not mention the word "hate".  Instead, they say
the target was chosen because of his/her perceived race/gender/...  That
choice good be for good or ill, just like premeditation can be for good
or ill.  It's only when the target is chosen for ill that the statute
kicks in.  Thus, there remains the tight coupling with an independent
action.

The Bills are only called 'hate crimes' yet the letter of law does not
operate with the word 'hate'. Since the title must (?) have some legal
relevance, is hate then then some spirit behind the letter? What function
does the title serve?

The neutrality of 'choice' being equated with that of premeditation? The
given choice was first that of a criminal act, this same choice is then
also separately evaluated by target.

Is the choice to do crime and then
the choice of target become two separate issues, with the possibility of
two separate hearings?

The hole gets deeper here with 'perception'. A perception, which can not
be anything other than 'personal' becomes a separate consideration from a
resulting action. This is, at least, the direction these laws suggest.

 >> 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?

Don't understand what you mean by "this".

this = unconstitutional abridgment

Isn't "where this law (or decision) takes us" a part of the judgment of
higher courts? Courts consider heavily the possible future ramifications
of an immediate maybe quite simple case. "Setting a dangerous precedent"
and all that. You, yourself, do not see this as being the case here?

Except, the statutes do not mention the word "hate". Instead, they say
the target was chosen because of his/her perceived race/gender/... That
choice good be for good or ill, just like premeditation can be for good
or ill. It's only when the target is chosen for ill that the statute
kicks in. Thus, there remains the tight coupling with an independent
action.

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?

Don't understand what you mean by "this".

Did you just argue that Veterans benefits and a minimum age to drive are
unconstitutional? Are you crazy?


Each has nothing to do with the Constitution.

No more than classifying degrees of burglary or
homicide


Why bother? Burglary is theft. The jury can resolve the details in each
case.

The basis of hate crimes doesn't create a "class of
people"---it creates a "class" of motivation for the
crime


Then why attach it to a person?