Hate Crimes Bill Passes Senate

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

I need source material

About the restoration of habeous corpus. Can you provide? (I'm NOT baiting you, I just think something may have zoomed under my radar and I want to analyze it).

Not unreasonable law language - but it really does not change intrastate laws in any way.

It will be interesting to see a)if it passes, b) if odious things get attached to it, and c) if it ever used and for what purposes. The language looks good though (though IANAL)
 
Keven, section 3B clearly explains it. This bill gives the federal government jurisdiction of its own charges that are created by the bill. It does not compel the enforcement of any state laws.
 
Jeff,

I think we either misunderstood each other or we were talking past each other. Or, I just didn't get your point.

Of course the whole point of adding us to the hate-crimes legislation was to make it possible to intervene below the federal level. The feds can't interfere in Constitutionally valid state laws (14th amendment), so only thusly could those jurisdictions which don't give a flying halibut about us be motivated to preserve our rights...they now being federal and thus overarching.

Hunter, here is the link to Bush#43 stripping us of that right:
Here, the Supreme Court restored them:

No, we have not yet seen legislation stripping them out of the abominations against the Constitution the Republicans pushed through under Bush#43. For now, we only have the Supreme Court judgment. I hope to see legislation before the end of the year so that Republicans will have a chance to reaffirm their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not happy with the fact that Obama has moved too slowly on these things. Just, he is going the right direction.

As for the other nonsense from the Bush,er, presidency. Here, the fourthamendment overturned and the rest by extension, too:
Here, we see the 4th restored:

I'm done for the evening, long day. Very frightening, all in all - the important thing is that at least the Obama administration is restoring rights, if not quite as fast as a sleeping turtle walking backwards towards the finish line, at least Americans now have those rights again.
 
I guess there are multiple things going on and people often conflate them. I'm not a lawyer, but several friends are, so forgive me for paraphrasing a discussion between them and other friends of mine, I can't really remember their exact words.

There's a big difference between thoughtcrime and the fact that, at least currently, hate crimes would be criminal acts even if they weren't hate crimes. If you beat or kill someone, it's still a crime. The law is not asking to punish people for thinking of crimes. (Not mind you, that we're strangers to that either, just tell your friends you'd like to hurt the president, and you'll quickly find yourself dealing with treason, for example.)

Also, if you think that considering what people were thinking at the moment they've committed a crime is hard, you will be dismayed to find out that in criminal law intent is key in the majority of crimes. You get very different outcomes for identical acts depending on intention: if you drive off with my car planning to return it later, it's unauthorized use, not grand theft auto, even if you crash it an hour later and I never get it back. Another example? You are driving and talking on a cell phone with your friend, and you run over someone not knowing they are there, you're in for motor vehicle homicide… if instead you run over someone while telling your friend "Hey, here's so-and-so, I'm gonna run over them now", you're in for murder.

So yeah, harsh as it is, in the example Jeff offered, it seems that they *were* selecting someone to rob/assault *because* the person was gay, which the hate crime law was designed to be applied to. You may have noticed that when ordinary folks fall for a con artist we may ask "how can you be so dumb/greedy?" and give the con artist a light sentence, but when they scam old folks, the charges pile up quickly and people actually get up in arms if the law enforcement doesn't pile up the charges, everyone goes "that could be my parents you're talking about!" and just because we don't call it a "hate" crime doesn't mean that we don't apply the law more harshly when we perceive the criminals to be selecting people because they belong to some specific slice of the population.

Anyway, while we may acknowledge that some people are opposed to hate crime laws in general because they think it puts too much attention on motives over and above the criminal acts themselves, it might be interesting to also consider the fact that when an assault on an individual also functions to terrorize a community, it's not unreasonable to acknowledge those as two distinct criminal acts. Sometimes, as one of my friends said, it helps to treat systemic effects systematically.

Cheers
-- Paulo.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." -- Anatole France
 
well yes,

There has been tremendous effort to restore the constitutional amendments that were ignored by the Bush 43 presidency - but since I note these are April 2008 and October 2008 how does that mean Obama 'restored' them? They were restored via judicial action by judges that weren't corrupt, yes?

I'm not venerating Bush and dissing Obama but I don't see Obama helping to restore them, I see the judiciary saying 'hold it right there, you can't do that.'

The biggest frustration I have is that the left is usually the one who screams 'this is wrong' - but now that y'all have your boy in there everyone seems to be going to sleep.
 
Hunter,

No, I wouldn't say we are even moving that fast.
The urgency of whenever.
Sigh.

I knew most of the horror cabinet had been struck down (all those 'activist' judges who apply a strict reading of the Constitution), but I didn't realize how far behind we lagged, still. I do know the justice department is ready to use the new hate crimes legislation's funds to promote civil rights, but, gosh - we need to go faster.

It is funny, I know you're not in love with the Democrats, but it's the Republicans who keep taking away rights..while we lament over them and drag our feet.

Sigh.

Oh, ENDA may have the votes to go through this year.
 
You know, I have to say something here....it is VERY NICE to see everyone talk about a topic about which we don't all agree and be completely civil and open minded and have no name calling...this is quite nice.

Good job boys!! Keep up the good work!
 
perhaps you misunderstand me, Panthera...

I am not in love with EITHER the Repubicans or the Democrats, believing that BOTH are horrible. It's easy to point at Republican excess - they had majorities in both the house and senate for six years. But really, the Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2006...THREE YEARS AGO. And I have seen no change at all.

Both parties are disgusting. Ultimately it comes down to individuals feeling they are more (or less) like one of the parties public platforms. But really are either of them that different? They simply want power and nothing else, at the expense of all of us.

The unfortunate thing is - we let them do it.
 
Oh, heavens no,

Hunter - I read you loud and clear.

Your analysis of both is spot on, the Republicans being slightly more inclined to attack the Constitution, the Democrats leaning slightly more towards dithering when they should be doing. That, I think, we can agree on.

As a member of a threatened class (gay man), I don't have the luxury of thumbing my nose at the parties. I split my time between Europe, where I am granted full civil rights and the US where we are, literally, sub-human. The Democrats are, at worst not going to hurt me, the Republicans just recently submitted a bill to have a gay rights ban permanently written into the Constitution.

'Leave me alone' in the sense of 'let me be' is one of the Rocky Mountain Characteristics I most value. Grew up in that culture. Because of the desperate people on the coasts who tried to impose gun control (and I don't mean that in our sense: using both hands) on the West, Democrats are seen by too many as unelectable. This, coupled with the rise of know-nothing christianists has radically altered the nature of the Republican party over the last decades. Give me an alternative, please.

We don't have the luxury in the US of a true third party and, after the last eight years, we can't really keep up the pseudo-intellectual pretense that elections don't have consequences. So, I work with the group which is least out to hurt my love and me.

Hope your weather isn't nearly as dreary as it looks.
 
the thing I find so difficult...

Interestingly enough, my observation of so called 'Conservatives (what you would call christianists) is that they bluster A LOT but if you put up a token front, they'll leave you alone (Obviously if you are a male partnered with a man, and living with him, you can't do this and I certainly understand your position).

The left, however, want you to be a true believer.

It's very strange.

Ironically enough, the worst thing is most of the bad stuff toward gays in the last 20 years was done by democrats (the Clintons, another presidency that didn't give a damn about the constitution).

Having lived in Massachusetts, I try to avoid ever visiting either coast again. Facism under any name,right or left, is still facism. The Mass SJC recently ruled that it is quite legal to put a tracing device on the cars of suspected criminals. Gods wounds, talk about self incrimination! If the state wishes to find me guilty of something they can have someone follow me.

I do love to read Ayn Rand's words on the American right - she condemned them utterly for bringing religion into politics, and she was of course, absolutely right.

Hunter
 
Yeah,

99% of those id-i-ots out there talking about 'going Galt' have neither the creativity nor the first clue what Rand was talking about. I enjoyed The Fountainhead enormously when I was 13, found Atlas Shrugged more than a bit boring. She sure did nail Colorado mentality with it, tho'.

You've seen me called a Leninist-Marxists-Fascist-Socialist-Librul here for stating that value addition is the key to wealth in a capitalist society. When that is the basis upon which economics is discussed - as it pretty much is, I fear neither of us has a clue just how 'deviant' we really are from the majority. Clinton has, since, admitted the error of his ways. I think he, similar to Carter, underestimated the willingness of the far right to tear up the Constitution to achieve their aims. Unlike Carter, he wised up and, if he'd been able to think with his head and not his penis, we might just have made some progress.

Come to think of it, yes, I do believe this great animosity really stems to a large extent from the impeachment. That's certainly the point where I realized the Republicans were willing to trample the Constitution to reach their aims.

I disagree with Rand on many things - and, thanks to Mad Maggie, I need only point to what she did to the North of the UK to make the point cogently and irrefutably. Still, tho', we can't return to an agrarian economy and so long as my darlin's right to be left in peace is directly under threat, I have to work with the folks who are changing it. It's that simple - gays and transgendered are directly under attack. I mean, look at Maine and Washington state...look at Prop. 8. Since when did America become about stripping people of their human status?
 
But...

Honestly people striding around proudly proclaiming their individualism while spouting rand in ever phrase is a hoot. Yes, I know her writings well, and I admire them, and I do even sometimes spout them - but hell it's a BOOK, an ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT COULD BE (and we are close to). I do believe that lots of teh world are 'looters' but you MUST check your premise when you deal with that.

...value addition IS the key to wealth in a capitalist society. How can you think of it as anything else?

Honestly, Bill Clinton's biggest failing was his incredible narcissism.

I do disagree on one point though: I see the demos trample the constitution just as much.

I would argue that Mrs. Thatcher did what so many so called right wingers have done all over: they don't believe in true free markets, but instead in markets manipulated for their buddies. Just like the left does. And her insistence on the 'community charge' was also ridiculous. But given how far UK has gone down the path of totalitarianism what other do you expect? How can the US take on the policies that are causing complete deindustralization ?

As for the various antigay stuff on state ballots - I don't understand it at all. It is anti-freedom and the so called champions of freedom on the right should be (well actually the 10 of us left ARE) screaming from the rooftops about it.

I will never, never, never give up though.
 
you just stay up on those rooftops, Hunter

It will make you a much easier target for the 60 million conservatives who don't believe in the Constitution...

I wish I were joking. Honestly, did you know that most students are no longer taught civics? The Republicans budget cut it in Colorado - when I was a child, it was a full, separate, one year class in junior high. Now, it's either supposed to be taught with American History-geography-state history or is an elective.

I take a lot of flak from American friends who say to me that the big difference between the US and Europe is that over here, everything which is not permitted is forbidden...and that is so wrong. The German Constitution, for instance, is modeled after the American and the French and grants the same freedoms plus several extra (like gays are human). Everything not enumerated as belonging to the State of necessity is forbidden to the State to prohibit.

But the way the Republicans read it in the US, it was just the opposite and since too many Americans actually believed in Bush #43 as the second-coming incarnate (real patriots) and the idiot Democrats were too busy being politically correct and threatening to come get your gun, we got into this mess.

Sheesh.

Oh, looks like NOM in Maine stole an entire TV-Ad this time and boy are copyright owners furious. No, not the NPR stuff, that was last week. The actions of the Catholic Church here and NOM are mirror images of the last eight years of trampling on the Constitution - they want it, and are willing to destroy the federal republic to get it. Jefferson knew why he didn't want a pure democracy.
 
You've read it right, Panthera.

I can't argue with you here...and as for being on the rooftops to be a better target, I think I can handle myself with them.

Honestly, WHY is our country so filled with idiots in recent decades?

Never mind, I know why: the immediate gratification of the sound byte, among other things.
 
Keven,

Please... I am not attacking you. I feel the need to let you know that before I post the following:

You posted: "You know, just two weeks ago my darlin' was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting at which the keynote speaker made an extra point of mentioning that it is not only legal but God's will to discriminate against gays in housing and employment. We really are under attack."

Did your darlin' say anything about it at the meeting? Or, assuming that it may have been something that may have inflamed folks, did he report it anonymously in any way to anyone? Apathy on our part is just as bad as what you say the christianists are doing!! No one needs to be militant, but there are times that people need to be questioned.

If nothing else, the group he represented should have been informed, even if anonymously.

When our fuel guy came into the shop last year and asked, "Did you fill the faggot's bus?," it was heard by a co-worker and reported to me. You bet your ass I reported it to my supervisor and made sure it was addressed. I have a good relationship with the manager of the shop and several of the shop employees, so....

Chuck
 
actually...

I too had wondered about this - not attacking you Keven but what was the context?

Our conversation has been so fast and furious I blew right by it.
 
Speaking of the US Constitution

Another one of those 'judicial activists', another Bush#43 appointee just ruled that the PAC in Washington state does so have to tell the voters where their money comes from.

Guess where? NOM.
And who gave it to NOM?
Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs!

So Christian, so brimming with charity. I guess the commandment against false witness doesn't apply, it being Old Testament, eh?

Loading…

www.pamshouseblend.com
 

Similar threads

panthera
Hate Crimes Bill Passes Senate
Replies
0
Views
1
panthera
panthera
P
Matthew Shepard Act passes Senate!
Replies
2
Views
3
polkanut
polkanut

Latest posts

Back
Top