Peter Franks wrote:

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?

I have no idea what you mean by "artificial" classes. These are real
classifications (gender, race, etc.). Instead of "create", I should
have said "acknowledge an existing class".

The law says we will punish someone more harshly who targets a victim
because of the victim's race.

All people are treated equally because
all get the additional protection of harsher punishment if they are
targeted because of their race, and all do not get that additional
protection if they are targeted for some other reason. On the other
hand, if the enhanced punishment only applies if the victim is targeted
because he is black, then whites are left without the additional
protection - and thus not treated equally.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

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?


I have no idea what you mean by "artificial" classes. These are real
classifications (gender, race, etc.). Instead of "create", I should
have said "acknowledge an existing class".


"Cop killer" is an artificial class.

But under closer examination:

Gender is an artificial class. Is one gender superior to another? If
so, then you have a class. If not, then there is no class (in the eyes
of the law), and the creation of such (in the eyes of the law) IS
artificial.

Ibidem for race, orientation, etc.

The law says we will punish someone more harshly who targets a victim
because of the victim's race.


So, we have created an artificial class. For some unknown and undefined
reason, someone that targets someone in a class as opposed to targeting
someone for some other reason, the consequence is the same, but the
punishment is not.

The classes are purely artificial and serve NO purpose.

Suppose that we create a new special class -- preppies. If someone
deliberately targets someone wearing Lacoste, the punishment will be 2x
as severe. What other classes should we protect?

All people are treated equally because all get the additional
protection of harsher punishment if they are targeted because of their
race, and all do not get that additional protection if they are
targeted for some other reason. On the other hand, if the enhanced
punishment only applies if the victim is targeted because he is black,
then whites are left without the additional protection - and thus not
treated equally.

Your distinction between "real" an "artificial" classifications strikes
me as weird and unnecessary to the analysis - but if you like the
distinction, go with it.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:43:30 -0500, Strabo
strabo at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:

No more than classifying degrees of burglary or
homicide

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

I don't know "why bother"---it's the accepted law

It is rational, legal, moral, ethical and
constitutional

Arguing some loonytarian bullshit ron paulian nonsense
just isn't productive.

Info Junkie wrote:
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?

 

Explain.- Hide quoted text -

Arguing some loonytarian bullshit ron paulian nonsense
just isn't productive.


On my jury it is.

I *should* have started a new thread for this subject but was curious
as to your position on the legality of Citizen Grand Juries and
presentments.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:01:34 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:

I *should* have started a new thread for this subject but was curious
as to your position on the legality of Citizen Grand Juries and
presentments.

I'm Curious as to how you think it passed muster for
all this time---and hasn't been challenged
constitutionally.

I'm Curious as to how you think it passed muster for
all this time---and hasn't been challenged
constitutionally.

Your free to show that Gcitizen Grand Juries haven't "passed muster".
ITM, when were presentments ruled as unconstitutional?

On Nov 7, 8:59 am, Info Junkie <bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
(In bad taste to respond to one's own post, but I do so to correct
(grrr - typos))

Citizen Grand Juries

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:02:09 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie

bondrock at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:59 am, Info Junkie <bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
(In bad taste to respond to one's own post, but I do so to correct
(grrr - typos))

Citizen Grand Juries

as opppose to  "alien" grand juries?

You change your Usenet name often and are still using "X-No-Archive:
yes" in an effort to hide from your own foolish words being archived.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:10:37 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
You change your Usenet name often and are still using "X-No-Archive:
yes" in an effort to hide from your own foolish words being archived.

You can see "my words" on a daily basis

MOF, you can do like everyone else---save them, alter
them, forge them, make them up

Doesn't change your idiotic beliefs a whit.

You can see "my words" on a daily basis

Which disappear after 6 days.