DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on May 03, 2007, 02:36:05 PM
-
Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 03, 2007
(1st Add: Includes comments from Focus on the Family and Reps. John Conyers and Lamar Smith.)
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush looks likely to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by Congress. Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law."
"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President, and forwarded by Concerned Women for America.
"However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," the release stated. "If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592," the statement said.
In addition, "state and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively."
"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government," the office said.
"In addition, almost every state in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the state's own hate crimes law."
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, was quick to praise the statement.
"We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Barber in a statement.
Barber told Cybercast News Service Thursday that according to his sources in the White House, the president is inclined to follow his advisors' recommendations to veto the bill if passed.
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also welcomed the undertaking.
"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law," he said in a statement. "The American justice system should never create second-class victims and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the House is debating the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592), which would "provide federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes" involving "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."
The bill was first introduced on March 20 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).
He told the House Thursday that "there are no First Amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the First Amendment I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill."
Conyers said a vote for the bill would not be "a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It's a vote, rather, to provide basic rights and protections for individuals so they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation."
Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."
Opposing the measure, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would result in disproportionate justice for victims of certain crimes.
"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system. Under this bill justice will no longer be equal but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim," he said.
"For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or a transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, members of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person."
Smith also voiced concern that the measure would have a "chilling effect" on religious leaders and groups "who express their constitutionally protected beliefs."
He also argued that it was unconstitutional and would likely be struck down by the courts.
'Other classes would be without special status'
According to the Executive Office release, "H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
"The administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status," the release said. "The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly."
Also, the bill "raises constitutional concerns" because "federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the federal government, such as the power to protect federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce or to enforce equal protection of the laws," the statement said.
Therefore, "it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592," the release added.
-
Interestingly enough, all the hate I see around here comes from those on the left...
-
Interestingly enough, all the hate I see around here comes from those on the left...
Ironic isn't it. Have you ever seen a thread title even remotely comparable from the right to some of Lanya's, Tee's, and pretty much every one of knute's?
-
<<Interestingly enough, all the hate I see around here comes from those on the left...>>
It's those fucking lefties who invaded Iraq and killed 600,000 Iraqis. The conservatives bombed them but they bombed them with pure love.
I gotta figure this out one day. Lefties are filled with hate but kill nobody. Conservatives are filled with love but kill millions. Lefties show their hatred by calling for an end to war and violence. Conservatives show their love by crying out for war, death and destruction in ever-increasing quantities till all resistance to them ceases.
Maybe the answer is to be found in Orwell. Maybe - - if war is peace; if freedom is slavery; if ignorance is strength - - then love is killing and hate is non-violence. I got it!!! These guys - - sirs, Ami, etc. - - they aren't FROM the earth. They're from Planet Orwell.
-
Somebody piss in your cornflakes this morning, Mikey?
-
Somebody piss in your cornflakes this morning, Mikey?
;)
-
Lefties are filled with hate but kill nobody.
China's Cultural revolution anyone?
How many died then. Most have been in the millions.
Viet Nam goes to war with Cambodia, China intervenes. How many dead?
-
The decision (on the hate crimes bill) is straightforward. Either you favor helping out the groups named (which boosts your political agenda on their behalf) or you don't favor doing so (which leaves them without the "political cover" the law would offer, but leaves in place a great deal of deterrence already on the books). Stated differently (and it can be stated many ways), left-leaners talk protection but have their eyes on further acceptance, while right-leaners are willing to sacrifice the modicum more of protection the law would provide in order to keep gays in the moral wilderness.
-
Interestingly enough, all the hate I see around here comes from those on the left...
Ironic isn't it. Have you ever seen a thread title even remotely comparable from the right to some of Lanya's, Tee's, and pretty much every one of knute's?
Yes, I find this intriguing since I, regularly, post messages that are more evenly balanced, even some anti-Republican such as my latest on the Waning Power of the GOP.
-
If gays are in the "moral wilderness" it is via their own volational actions.
There is no need for ANOTHER "protection" bill. They are already protected. What, are we gonig to continue the process of enacting legislation to protect every supposedly minority group? Get real...
-
The decision (on the hate crimes bill) is straightforward. Either you favor helping out the groups named (which boosts your political agenda on their behalf) or you don't favor doing so (which leaves them without the "political cover" the law would offer, but leaves in place a great deal of deterrence already on the books). Stated differently (and it can be stated many ways), left-leaners talk protection but have their eyes on further acceptance, while right-leaners are willing to sacrifice the modicum more of protection the law would provide in order to keep gays in the moral wilderness.
Or stated differently the left is in favor of creating more laws that may or may not be enforced in order to feel good about themselves and the right is interested in enforcing sufficient laws already on the books.
-
<<Stated differently (and it can be stated many ways), left-leaners talk protection but have their eyes on further acceptance, while right-leaners are willing to sacrifice the modicum more of protection the law would provide in order to keep gays in the moral wilderness.>>
I think that's a pretty fair summary. I'm nervous about any law giving special status, even protected status, to any kind of minority, because once the principle is accepted that the law will recognize different classes of citizens for one purpose (protection) it's one step closer to allowing the law to recognize different classes of citizens for other purposes (discrimination.)
I agree with domer that neither side in that debate is being straight-up as to its motives and its agenda.
-
<<China's Cultural revolution anyone?
<<How many died then. Most have been in the millions. >>
Nobody has a handle on it. Could have been in the millions. How many of those millions were counter-revolutionaries and enemies of the people? Lackeys of U.S. imperialism? Nobody knows.
<<Viet Nam goes to war with Cambodia, China intervenes. How many dead?>>
According to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian-Vietnamese_War- a questionable 30,000 on each side. A tiny pittance compared to the number of Vietnamese killed as a result of criminal American aggression in Vietnam.
Point taken, though - - maybe I should have limited my comments to conservatives and lefties in the U.S.A.
-
Point taken, though - - maybe I should have limited my comments to conservatives and lefties in the U.S.A.
I'd rethink that too. Who killed President McKinley?
-
<<I'd rethink that too. Who killed President McKinley?>>
Come off it! Bill Clinton wasn't even born then.
-
Interestingly enough, all the hate I see around here comes from those on the left...
Ironic isn't it. Have you ever seen a thread title even remotely comparable from the right to some of Lanya's, Tee's, and pretty much every one of knute's?
Yes, I find this intriguing since I, regularly, post messages that are more evenly balanced, even some anti-Republican such as my latest on the Waning Power of the GOP.
So true, Professor. I've also seen critical posts presented about the GOP & Bush from the likes of Ami, Plane, Bt, & Miss De. When have you ever seen a critical post about the left from messers Lanya, Tee, Brass, (no need to even mention knute), that wasn't simply criticising them for not being fringe enough? such as not opposing the war, Bush, or the GOP hard enough? ???
-
<<When have you ever seen a critical post about the left from messers Lanya, Tee, Brass, (no need to even mention knute), that wasn't simply criticising them for not being fringe enough? >>
That's a good point as far as I'm concerned (the others named can speak for themselves) but the flip side of the coin is when were those "balanced" posts of Ami, plane, BT and Missus D ever anything except criticism of the GOP for not being fringe right enough? (I don't mention the Professor in that group only because he does seem to be fairly even-handed in his criticism.)
The other thing I want to say is that I come to this from what you might call a far-left perspective and I WILL criticize either or both parties if they aren't where I am on a particular topic. That's only natural. I don't see a two-party system with myself standing somewhere in the middle between them. That WOULD call for a more even-handed approach. Far as I am concerned this is a one-party system emphasizing minor factional splits to create an illusion of a two-party system. So it's natural I'd criticize both factions, one for being way to the right and the other, to the left of the first one, for not being far enough to the left. No mysteries there, sirs.
-
That's a good point as far as I'm concerned (the others named can speak for themselves) but the flip side of the coin is when were those "balanced" posts of Ami, plane, BT and Missus D ever anything except criticism of the GOP for not being fringe right enough? (I don't mention the Professor in that group only because he does seem to be fairly even-handed in his criticism.)
Well, most recently was my attack on "Intelligent Design." There have been many others. It's that whole "memory" thing again.
-
<<Well, most recently was my attack on "Intelligent Design." There have been many others. It's that whole "memory" thing again.>>
It's beyond memory. I don't even follow the "Intelligent Design" threads any more. The whole thing is such an obvious crock it's a waste of time and effort. Like debating Flat Earthers.
I wasn't speaking of fringe issues like that anyway. When was the last time a conservative other than the Professor attacked the GOP on a core conservative issue (Middle East, torture, civil rights, stolen elections, etc.)? Other than to complain that they're not out far enough on the fringes?
-
Is civil (equal) rights a core conservative issue?
-
When was the last time a conservative other than the Professor attacked the GOP on a core conservative issue (Middle East, torture, civil rights, stolen elections, etc.)? Other than to complain that they're not out far enough on the fringes?
Well, since you don't read all the threads, you can't possibly know, huh?
-
When was the last time a conservative other than the Professor attacked the GOP on a core conservative issue (Middle East, torture, civil rights, stolen elections, etc.)? Other than to complain that they're not out far enough on the fringes?
Well, since you don't read all the threads, you can't possibly know, huh?
Precisely. And if I were to wager a guess, if he did happen to stumble upon them, he'd steer clear, for fear of giving any validation to the ojectivity of that poster. In Tee's world, if they're conservative, they just have to be nut cases, with blanket support for anything and everything torture, war, racism, yada, blah, etc.
-
<<I'd rethink that too. Who killed President McKinley?>>
Come off it! Bill Clinton wasn't even born then.
If you want to limit this to recent leadership , can we count LBJ?
Or Carter?
Or Clinton?