Posted on 08/30/2012 7:47:40 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
1. Yes, the Federal government had the power to protect those whose constitutional rights had been infringed
2. No, the Federal government overstepped its boundary and infringed on the sovereignty of the states
3. I'm not sure
But I'm a bit interested to see what people here think. Were the laws proposed legal? This is something of an informal poll, so please begin a post with the number of your choice.
7
sniff ...
Yes. Individual rights trump State powers. One individual right is you can’t be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Are you worried about something?
Name one crime that is not an act against someone’s rights. The Federal encroachment into what should be a state level crime is part of what has driven us to the state we now find ourselves. We must not let the feds take over everything.
It isnt that the crime itself is a violation of rights but when the crime is sanctioned by the State that the federal level has the responsibility to protect the individual from the states encroachment on their rights.
The equal - protection clause was originally specially meant to mandate federal intervention if States declined to protect classes of people from violence.
So pass a law that addresses the crime by the state and not a law for a crime that is not the responsibility of the feds. Do not add more power to the feds.
When a person feels the hemp tightening around their neck rights and jurisdictions become a moot point.
Yikes!
That might be hard to do, if the people being lynched are the individuals who get noticed, as the people trying to get it to the ballot box.
mnehring was advocating that the feds should pass laws for lynching because the state was supporting the lynching. I stated that we should not give the feds that much power and we should limit the law to only the state action. The feds have too many laws already and they are encroaching into the state and local level all time. We need to limit the feds reduce government and laws at the fed level or our republic will continue to fail.
I still don’t get you, if California starts lynching conservative opposition, it is a state issue?
Alright, looks like support was strongly in favor of such laws, which was about what I expected. You see, I made an analogy to anti-lynching laws to a pro-abortion co-worker, when defending the legality of federal anti-abortion legislation. Same principle really, that of the individual being deprived of life without due process. He and I got into it a bit on the “state’s rights” argument that was raised historically, and eventually we had a wager on it. Looks like I won.
Murder is a state issue unless it is a federal official engaged in the performance of the duties of their office. Allowing the feds to be able to be the trial court for any murder means that we do not have to have any state courts because the feds have jurisdiction over all crime. Eric Holder then can only prosecute only those whom he deems worthy of his time and effort. Otherwise known as whites need not apply, just take the punishment from a just society. Why would you want to give more power to the feds? How would giving this power to the feds make us more free?
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.