Replies

There is no authority in our Constitution(s) for arresting, let alone sending to trial and convicting, a person in the United States, for a "hate crime;" indeed, our Constitution only authorizes the taking away of personal liberty, for a violent act.

There is no authority to arrest somebody for not liking somebody else or even *saying that they don't like somebody else.*

While liberals and people seeking revenge, fantasize that **THINKING IS VIOLENT** because they must find, somehow, "violence" in all that they oppose --- in order to justify thought police state actions --- they have no Constitutional ground upon which to arrest what displeases them and theirs.

The point is, that one of the major ojections among our Founding Fathers (and their ancestors), which gave rise to our new country, was that in the old country, there was too much, and in the history of other countries, there was too much:

Abuse by government - wherein these governments arrested people and usually locked them away in some dungeon, because of what they were thinking, alleged or otherwise.

Our Founding Fathers were ardently opposed to Thought Police State Authority.

Now, because so much "hate crime" prosecution has resulted in a very great bias in fact and in the liberal media and in the public eye ... where so-called "minorities" have been the "victims," there have been occasions when "the white people" have been set upon by so-called "minorities," and some in the public want to enforce "hate crimes" prosecutions, in order to, putting it mildly, "reverse [the long overdue] discrimination."

Does not matter - their wishes to reverse things or get revenge - it is not Constitutional, and ALL "hate crimes" criminal statutes should be promptly revoked and torn up.

They are an abomination and grievous affront to our Constitution, which originally intended that our government(s) not get into the business of Thought Police Actions --- see the First Amendment!

indeed, our Constitution only authorizes the taking away of personal liberty, for a violent act.

Can you provide a specific reference in the USC to support this? Best as I am aware, it says we can't deprive one of life, liberty, or property without due process. No mention of a violent act. Care to provide a constitutional analysis?

Good grief, you still think that the Constitution has anything to do with how law is practiced in this country - get a clue!