1 posted on
09/12/2008 2:13:02 AM PDT by
Man50D
To: Man50D
"The hate crimes plan is to be offered as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of Defense reauthorization bill.
I should be used to this BS by now, but still steam when it happens. It can't stand on it's own, so it's tacked on the Defense bill. If successfully added as an amendment and the defense bill is passed - and it will be passed - the hate crimes become law.
Once again, I wonder about the constitutionality of a federal law - does this supposedly come under the much abused Interstate Commerce Clause?
2 posted on
09/12/2008 2:37:43 AM PDT by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
To: Politicalmom
3 posted on
09/12/2008 2:39:32 AM PDT by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
To: Man50D
I will be the test case.
NO goobermint is going to stop me from speaking my conscience; not while I’m breathing.
4 posted on
09/12/2008 2:48:37 AM PDT by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: Lancey Howard; Impy; Clintonfatigued; Clemenza; AuH2ORepublican; JohnnyZ; darkangel82; ...
6 posted on
09/12/2008 3:29:54 AM PDT by
fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
To: eeevil conservative; corbie; Fiddlstix; Rick_Michael; Man50D; The Spirit Of Allegiance; Waryone; ...
PING!!
Please FReepmail to be added to the Congress Watch ping list.
7 posted on
09/12/2008 4:37:56 AM PDT by
Politicalmom
(President McCain: "Ok, Ted, I want your list of supreme court nominees on my desk by Monday.")
To: All
BUMP!!!
DNC needs hollyweird money.
8 posted on
09/12/2008 4:45:23 AM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Man50D
And they claim the authority to enact this because they “find” that hate crimes “have a substantial effect on interstate commerce”, no less.
9 posted on
09/12/2008 4:52:36 AM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Man50D
10 posted on
09/12/2008 4:53:25 AM PDT by
Dante3
To: Man50D
I'd think this would be unconstitutional, under the first amendment - free exercise of religion.
The radical homosexuals do a lot of "hate speech" themselves against Christians, or anyone who does not support their lifestyle. To me, it sounds like a lot of noisy, undisciplined children.
If I don't support their lifestyle, if I think it's sinful, immoral, perverse, I guess you can count me in as a criminal-hater.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
