Posted on 05/09/2007 7:18:18 AM PDT by malibu2008
"Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto." - Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
May 7, 2007
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?
HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.
HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.
Ron Paul gets it.
So if I call somebody stupid, who in fact has done poorly in school, does that constitute as a hate crime?
If so, get the handcuffs ready because I have an explosive mouth.
Hahaaha, what a great comic.
Wake up America — this atrocity of a bill is typical of the way the radical left wants to CONTROL YOUR LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS — by making everything that they do not want said about their criminal and corrupt ways a crime.
Wake up now!!! Thank God that Bush will veto this freedom-destroying crap of a bill. Your socialist left at work.
why can’t he declare an executive order deporting all Democrats ? Use the sedition act as fuel for the fire .
The Soviets, whose American adherents have thoroughly infiltrated the Democrat party, understood that all you need do to control good men is to make so many laws that it's impossible to avoid breaking any of them. Then you brand him guilty and and he's much easier to manipulate.
I have asked several proponents of such “hate crimes” legislation the same questions - and have NEVER received and answer - not even a stupid answer:
1. If someone murders me because I am in the way of a robbery, and someone else is murdered and the murderer has expressed hatred for a race - does that make the one murdered by the racist any more dead than me?
2. Someone gets in a fight with a homosexual after having sendt an email against gay marriage - does that make them more guilty than someone in a fight with a straight person?
3. Why stop at protecting gays? how about enhanced penalties for those who victimized old people? How about those pro-abortion folks who assaulted the peaceful anti-abortion protesters outside of an abortion clinic? How about teachers who are assaulted because a “student” really hates his teachers? How about the school shooter who takes a gun to school and murders his classmates because of his “HATE”? How about the gang member who shoots up a house because a member of a rival gang (who he of course, hates) lives there?
4. So - doesn’t all crime involve some form of hate? If we loved one another - then we would not commit crimes against each other...
The truth is - hate crimes legislation is 100% a tool to silence views that are contrary to the liberal worldview.
The truth is - hate crimes legislation is 100% a tool to silence views that are contrary to the liberal worldview.
:::
Exactly. And totally unconstitutional. Another reason that the socialists must be taken out of the majority in the Congress, and be kept out of the White House.
Unfortunately, a couple of the so-called "leading" candidates for the GOP nomination fully support such legislation - and are essentially socialists of the same mold as the one's currently pushing this junk on us.
Ron Paul for POTUS!
ping
All violent crimes are hate crimes. Glad to see some common sense still left with at least a few individuals in Congress.
Well, he’s on the pro-employed-citizen (read anti-government) side of just about every issue. I realize Libertarians aren’t good for everything, but the current crap of Democrats and “republic”ans are all too authoritarian to fulfill the vision of the Founders. How many times has the Bush administration filed amicus briefs upholding the position of an out-of-control government over that of a private citizen? I’m not talking about terrorists here, think Elliot.
No, that’s not this Ron Paul. You must be thinking of some other Ron Paul. One that is a figment of your imagination.
On the “rough days” I pick up the Calvin and Hobbes. It never fails to lift my spirits.
Sorry there Iwo, it is that Ron Paul. He did everything I posted. I was mocking him because he is a pathetic joke.
Ron Paul who voted against the Iraq Resolution but instead offered a Declaration of War against Iraq to get rid of the dependence of the UN justification for the military action to keep our sovereignty intact and to keep the constitutional power of Congress to declare war in Congress instead of transferring the power to the POTUS. Yep that Ron Paul.
Good for Ron Paul. I’m not going to vote for him in the primary, but I respect him for this.
“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”
You must agree with Henry Hyde then.
The Ron Paul that voted “NO” to remove Saddam instead of voting present? If he wanted to make a point, he could have voted present, instead he voted no. It matters not what Paul sponsors or what he says. It mattes how he voted. He is toast.
Did he vote to uphold President Bush’s veto of Iraq funding bill?
I assume so, since he voted against it in the first place.
It's unfortunate that Ron Paul doesn't "get it" when it comes to Iraq and the WOT. He may get the small stuff, but when it comes to the most important issue that will determine the future of the U.S., and dare I say the world, he's an idiot.
Ron Paul for POTUS!
The only politician worth voting for.
How stupid does he think we are?
There is no substitute for victory.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Are there any domestic issues with which you disagreee with Paul on?
In my opinion, individual liberty is a much more important issue than the war on terror.
It's not often that someone posts a reasonable objection to Ron Paul, but you just did. Usually it's something along the lines of "Ron Paul is a nutty loserdopian who wants to fellate Osama!!!!!!!"
No? Then what they heck do we need hate crime laws for?
ping
He sure is. Which is why he should be running as the Libertarian candidate, instead of a Republican one. He does not support enough of the Republican platform for me to consider him one. RINO of a different stripe.
Ok. I'm sure the terrorists wish more of us felt that way. If we do not fight this WOT we can all kiss ANY and ALL of our individual liberties goodbye. Don't get me wrong, I care about individual liberty too, but I'd like for us to be alive to enjoy those liberties. :)
If only more had voted no, then thousands of Americans would still be alive, and tens of thousands wouldn't be horribly injured.
How exactly were the Iraqis going to kill us all?
Perhaps you meant to refer to Saddam and his cohorts? The majority of Iraqis weren't the enemy and they aren't today either. I wish I had the time to educate you regarding the WOT, Al Queda, Saddam's defiance of the UN Resolutions, etc., but I don't. If you're still this clueless after all these years something tells me that you probably never cared to learn truth and facts in the first place. Have a nice day.
Way to not answer the question. I'll ask again. How exactly were "Saddam and his cohorts" going to kill us all? By the way, I did two tours in Iraq with the Marine Corps. How many did you do? My guess is zero. Are you one of those people who thinks that Bush is doing a great job? Do you honestly believe that he would have gone into Iraq if he could have foreseen how it would work out? We went into Iraq with far too few troops, and a lousy post-invasion plan. Now my friends and I have to pay the price.
PS You can't even spell Al-Qaeda. I don't think I need you to "educate" me.
You might sell that at DU or Kos land, I am not buying that.
Buying what?
All I asked was "how exactly were the Iraqis going to kill us all?" By what means?
What was untrue about my statement?
Saddam was keeping down the mullahs and islamofascists who, now in power around the country, have created chaos, established sharia law, and driven 2 million people out of the country - including most Christians.
Saddam was a brutal dictator - but a lot of his brutality was against Islamic nutcases. He was a secularist. That's why Osama hated him.
Me too. The only problem with your logic is that Saddam and his 5th rate army didn't pose any danger to your liberties or mine. No more than, say, Mugabe, another dictator, threatens you or me.
Actually, the people who have been shown to be deluded - or at least misinformed - are the officials who said we had to invade Iraq because they had wmd's. Bush and Cheney now admit there were no wmd's. I have a hard time calling Ron Paul "deluded" when he opposed an invasion that has only served to massively destabilize Iraq, create 2 million refugees (including most of the country's Christians), empower Iran, free Iraqi islamo-nutcases to set up sharia law in the countryside, establish an explicitly Muslim constitution, and cost the US taxpayers $2 billion a week.
Ron Paul, you were right.
That's about idiotic. Declaring War also brings sedition laws into effect. It also allows for total war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.