To: mcg2000
Rape isn't properly a federal concern, especially since the assaults took place in his private office. I'm all for punishing rape, but calling these crimes a 'deprivation of rights under color of law' seems like a stretch of Commerce-Clause proportions.
7 posted on
09/23/2006 5:11:47 AM PDT by
Grut
To: Grut
I disagree with you on this one - I think this is a proper and necessary application of federal powers.
The crime, you will note, was deprivation of rights, not rape.
It is a law we should use more often.
Against SWAT teams, for instance.
15 posted on
09/23/2006 6:35:29 AM PDT by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: Grut
Rape isn't properly a federal concern, especially since the assaults took place in his private office. I'm all for punishing rape, but calling these crimes a 'deprivation of rights under color of law' seems like a stretch of Commerce-Clause proportions. I understand what you're saying...and the rape itself certainly isn't the federal issue...but the threat to use his office is the deprivation of rights.
22 posted on
09/23/2006 10:29:51 AM PDT by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: Grut
Rape isn't properly a federal concern, especially since the assaults took place in his private office. I'm all for punishing rape, but calling these crimes a 'deprivation of rights under color of law' seems like a stretch of Commerce-Clause proportions. I understand what you're saying...and the rape itself certainly isn't the federal issue...but the threat to use his office is the deprivation of rights, if carried forth.
23 posted on
09/23/2006 10:30:12 AM PDT by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson