“I fought and bled for my country.” This is fine and to be lauded, but it doesn’t give your arguments about HCL any more validity than if you were a dirty fucking hippie like me.

“The federal government cannot assert any police power in the 50 states.” Really? So the FBI, DEA, or ATF can’t arrest me if I break the law? Good to know.

Dude, give it up! Just repeating things about HCL you heard on talk radio won’t win your argument with fafaroo. And he’ll hurt your feelings some more, too.

Oh boy! He we go again. AO thinks he knows more about Constitutional Law than the entire Supreme Court. AA has been upheld as Constitutional how many times now, AO?

“Essentially, it offers federal protection to anyone doing just about anything”

and to “I already answered that. Commerce clause.”

a pathetic attempt to give more power to the federal governement and is being disputed.

and to “This may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen written in this long lentghy thread. The law does not violent the first amendment NOW but it will. soon. sometime. Because evil judges want it to.
Again, you’re a moron.”

you ignore plain facts so you in fact are the moron as you ignore the rest of my quote, something again you stated I did which made me the moron right? so in turn this makes you the same.

and to your comment about me serving my country saying
And how exactly is this relevant to any part of this discussion? It isn’t relevant at all. It’s the last refuge of a moron who has no idea what he’s talking about. What a disgrace.

stating why I believe in what I believe makes me a disgrace? exactly how? your a pathetic whiny little shit who believes he’s right, when he’s not. if you were right this wouldn’t still be an issue nor would they review the wording of the bill. do the world a favor and kill yourself.

And where did I say otherwise? Usually when you put something in quotes, it’s because you’re quoting it from where. Where did I say that federally protected acts cover “basically anything”?

Please don’t lecture me about “maturity” if you’re going to get your facts wrong in the first place and then distort what I write while correcting you.

Moron.

so I ask you where in the Consitution does it state the federal government has the ability to pass this bill as it stands or as it is written?

I already answered that. Commerce clause.

I am saying as of right NOW it doesn’t violate the 1st amendment but is on its way of doing so, such as canada.

This may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen written in this long lentghy thread. The law does not violent the first amendment NOW but it will. soon. sometime. Because evil judges want it to.

Again, you’re a moron.

I will try not to summarize by what I remember and will copy and paste word for word like you do and pretend its my own knowledge.

Okay. You’re just fucking stupid. Citing something to back up a factual assertion is how mature. intelligent people debate issues. Citing a source is not pretending “its my own knowledge.” It’s backing up a claim with the facts.

You really are just plain stupid.

…tell that to Canada where it actually is happening.

Because Canada has the exact same constitution we have. Right.

Moron.

I fought and bled for my countr …

And how exactly is this relevant to any part of this discussion? It isn’t relevant at all. It’s the last refuge of a moron who has no idea what he’s talking about. What a disgrace.

You’re mistaken. Federally protected activities also include:

(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been—

(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;

(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;

(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency;

(D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror;

(E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;

(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and
(i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and
(ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or

Note the parts that are bold, Ron. Essentially, it offers federal protection to anyone doing just about anything in public. Considerably broader than voting, attending school or sitting on a jury.

Matthew Shepard was murdered by two men he met in a bar. They lured him from the bar to the place they killed him. They did this because he was gay. The only reason Shepard’s killers couldn’t be prosecuted under federal hate crimes laws is because at the time, sexual orientation, wasn’t included in the statute. Otherwise, Shepard was engaged in a federally protected activity when his killers targeted him.

So, Ron, you’re dead wrong straight out of the gate. And yet the actual text of the 1969 hate crimes law is so easy to find using the google. Why couldn’t you just look it up to confirm what it says?

I think it’s because you don’t have any idea how to have “a civil and an intelligent debate.” A civil and intelligent debate requires some respect for the process of civil and intelligent debate.

Not having your basic facts straight at the outset shows considerable disrespect for the process. Especially when checking the basic facts is so easy these days. This is why you’re a fucking moron, Ron, and why I’m unmoved entirely buy your whining about civil and intelligent debate.

You don’t know what the phrase means. It doesn’t mean writing sentences like this:

The fact remains, this current act gives the federal government more power where the constitution states it should not.

and leaving it at that as if just adding the phrase “the fact remains” makes something true. It doesn’t. You actually have to support your claim with some evidence. But you haven’t.

You haven’t even cited or even named the section of the Constitution that this bill is supposed to have violated.

Here’s another example:

the matthew shepard act removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;

Really? It does? Can you cite the specific language that does this? Because all I see in the text is that it adds a new section on sentencing below the section that outlines federally protected activities adding this language:

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

….

(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

(I) across a State line or national border; or

(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–
(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

Is that language you’re talking about? Because that doesn’t change anything in the federally protected activities described in the original law while placing the law within Congress’ Constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce.

Now I know how much you disdain “previous cases in which two people argue in court over what is right and what is wrong” as “irrelevant” but when those cases are Supreme Court cases those cases anything but fucking irrelevant when you’re talking about the Constitutionality of a law. And the Supreme Court has granted Congress broad powers under the commerce clause to enact certain laws, including this one.

So in other words, when you write this:

the authors of this legislation actually attempt to say its consitutional since these crimes indirectly effect commerce… i mean… come on… really?

All I can say is take it up with the Supreme fucking Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Civil_rights

And this is my favorite part of your response:

and to answer when judges will start charging preachers for hate speech? sorry not a psychic, all i can do is say the potential is there since the power to do it will be.

Followed soon thereafter by this:

i do recognize that This bill also includes some feel good language, saying that it shall not be construed to penalize any constitutionally protected speech or religious belief. Well, no kidding. It goes without saying that no federal statute can override the Constitution, that any attempt to do so is automatically null and void and completely unenforceable in court.

It’s so awesome that you only decided to read the bill after your first rant and doubly awesome that you felt it was enough to dismiss what you found as “feel good language.” Please, dude.

Your paranoid fantasy of priests being arrested for preaching against homosexuality is just that: A paranoid fantasy. Thank you so much for introducing it into our “civil and intelligent debate.”

Moron.

now to help in this situation i do recognize that This bill also includes some feel good language, saying that it shall not be construed to penalize any constitutionally protected speech or religious belief. Well, no kidding. It goes without saying that no federal statute can override the Constitution, that any attempt to do so is automatically null and void and completely unenforceable in court.

I also recognize that The Constitution doesn’t forbid bad ideas or bad laws; it only forbids unconstitutional laws.

A person’s intentions regularly make a difference in a crime. Whether killing someone was done with premeditation and reflection is the difference between first and second-degree murder. Whether a killing was done is with malice aforethought is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Whether a person’s lethal act was intentional is the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Whether one person intended to hit another is the difference between battery and negligence. And so on.

so a case to shoot out here…
1993 case Wisconsin v. Mitchell. The Court reasoned that since the targeting of a specific individual in not speaking, it is not protected by the First Amendment.
so I realize legally the bill is not unconsitutional for the 1st amendment in this situation, and I must add in… yet.
But although this federal law may not violate the First Amendment, it may be unconstitutional anyway. In Mitchell, the Court was upholding a state law. That’s important because states wield the police power: the authority to make general laws for the public health, safety and morality of the population.
The federal government has no police power, except in Washington, D.C., federal territories such as Guam or Puerto Rico, or federal holdings such as military bases. The federal government cannot assert any police power in the fifty states.
So the federal government—as a government of limited jurisdiction—must have a specific provision of the Constitution that authorizes this hate-crimes provision. If it has none, then the law is unconstitutional. if the states don’t want it they don’t have to have it, so says the consitution.
the authors of this legislation actually attempt to say its consitutional since these crimes indirectly effect commerce… i mean… come on… really?

the Federal Hate Crimes Law was established in 1969 one year after the civil rights bill passed, this was a means to protect minorities who were attempting to if im not mistaken, engage in federally protected activities, like going to school and such. or voting, which i repeat as before The Constitution does not grant federal government the police state privilege of intervention in local law enforcement. Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce.

the matthew shepard act removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;
gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue.

The previous cases in which two people argue in court over what is right and what is wrong is irrelevant. The fact remains, this current act gives the federal government more power where the constitution states it should not. I believe in the idea of the hate crime bill in theory. I believe that any crime based off hate or without is without question disgusting and should be punished, what i dont believe in is violations of the consitution.

and to answer when judges will start charging preachers for hate speech? sorry not a psychic, all i can do is say the potential is there since the power to do it will be. I can however also state that canada is having these very issues as we speak. where does it end? they go as far as searching web sites where they then determine whom they are and either shut them down or prosecute.

Think not of what we desire but the effects of what we are asking for are given. Look to other countries whom some how we have fallen so proudly into their foot steps.

[i]Will[/i] be defined? [i]Will[/i]?

Here’s a couple questions for you, Ron.

How long has there been a federal law against hate crimes in the united states and can you tell me when these judges [i]finally[/i] going to get around to dragging Christians from their pulpits and throwing them in jail?

Ron, you’re a moron because you didn’t read the bill, nor I would gather, any hate crimes legislation. You haven’t read any of the case law and you haven’t read any of articles, legal opinions and cases I’ve cited here.

Your obvious ignorance was clear in your first post and it’s now clear, that rather than read up and educate yourself, you’ve decided to double down on the dumb with a heavy helping of conservative paranoia and Eu’rup is evil bullshit.

Same old same old.

America is now following hate law countries such as Canada, England, and Australia in erecting a bias-oriented justice system existing parallel to traditional law. The government will now become especially attuned to the question of whether bias has motivated a crime on the state level. If they decide it has, the federal government will have complete jurisdiction to enter the case, forcing states to obtain the verdict the government wants. If the state fails to do so, the government can force it to re-try the case until federal prosecutors are satisfied. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution, reserving generous rights and protections to states, especially in law enforcement, will become irretrievably shattered.

The Constitution does not grant federal government the police state privilege of intervention in local law enforcement. Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution’s message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: “Butt out of local law enforcement!”
But HCL gives the government the right to do what the Constitution forbids.
HCL seeks to establish a different “bias motivation” justice system, which will be defined in courts by judges, as has happened in Canada over the past 36 years. Closely advised and pressured by ADL, these federal and local (and mostly liberal) judges will establish legal precedents-precedents that protect groups such as homosexuals not only from physical bias-motivated violence but also from “verbal violence.” This will include the “hate speech” of Bible-believing evangelical Christians. This is exactly what has occurred in Canada and the many European nations who accepted hate laws.
HCL thus does more than violate states’ rights in law enforcement. It also leads inexorably to an end of free speech!

I am a consitutionalist not a bigot, nor am I a “moron” simply because I see the stupidity behind a bill that had little to no support and was only passed because of underhanded and devious means. If this bill had stood alone and America agreed by the majority that this was needed, I would agree to it.

The fact that this bill gives so much power to the federal government over local or state issues means that each state is no longer sovereign.
I don’t really care what you specifically had to say prior Fafaroo, as you are obviously ignorant to the long term damage this can cause to our rights, please pretend the constitution isnt just a piece of paper and realize this goes against everything America stands for.

get rid of the federal power taken by their own accord, allow states to decide if they want this, and if local government fails to uphold the already established law, get rid of them. please let me know how this makes me a moron. I await with open arms.

Oh yes. I’d say this was an accurate characterization of my position.

Ricci is a good example not of the lack of black intellectual achievement, a continual sore spot amongst liberals, but of your intellectual definciencies as you clearly backed the wrong horse on Ricci
…

You’re awesome, Amused. You never fail to out yourself.

“We explained the law to you, we explained the case to you, we explained the appeals court decision and then the supreme court decision to you. And you responded every time by telling us how black people were naturally stupid”

You were wrong on Ricci if you remember. And you are wrong to charactorize my position as black people were naturally stupid. The blacks in the Ricci case were obviously not up to speed compared to the successful litigents in the Ricci case. Your point at the time being any test blacks don’t pass is proof of racism. Ricci is a good example not of the lack of black intellectual achievement, a continual sore spot amongst liberals, but of your intellectual definciencies as you clearly backed the wrong horse on Ricci with the your usual enthusiasim for convoluted logic and disregard for our Constitution.

Hey CdWard,
You certainly have a talent for hyperbole or to put it in more direct terms, bullshit.

Really? I seem to have missed where you did that. Could you point that out to me?

What you haven’t shown is that HCL has any demonstrable preventative power, which is the primary reason for such legislation.

See, Jaim, I’ve already told you several times that I don’t think it matters one way or the other. And yet, here you are, trying to push this point as if it’s the key to the whole issue. It isn’t. It would be great if they did deter hate crimes, but if they don’t it doesn’t matter.

LOL. This is the only thing you’ve done yourself! “See, I can find an article by David Neiwart! Twice even!”

Yeah but you seem, Jaim, Neiwart actually provides facts and links to experts. That’s why I linked to Crooks and Liars in this thread. Neiwart spoke with an actual constitutional lawyer and cited his answers in the post. They were, of course, answers I’d already given to Amused but he seemed to require a second helping.

Again, I keep answering your questions and you keep coming back with the same shit as if I haven’t said anything at all.

Even when you have linked to someone, like Andrew Sullivan, Sullivan didn’t provide any expert or authoritative facts. He was just repeating the same opinion you have without any evidence to back it up. You linked to it thinking him just being Andrew Sullivan was enough to make everything he said true even though he has no special expertise on the subject. That’s an appeal to authority fallacy, Jaim.

When I link to some other source, you’ll see that the information presented there is actually sourced and cited to an actual authoritative text or actual expert in the field.

I didn’t just link to David Newiart saying a bunch of shit. I linked to David Neiwart talking to an actual fucking lawyer about the law.

You linked to Sullivan talking to himself.

You see the difference, Jaim?

Ron, why don’t you go back through this thread and then find the other thread on this legislation and read. Or else you could just do what I did and actually research the laws, the court decisions, the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion on your own.

You clearly haven’t done even the most basic research on the subject. Like Amused and Jaim, you have no idea how hate crimes laws work, what they do and how they’re enforced.

So why don’t you go education yourself and then come back here. If you do the actual research and you come to the same conclusion, come back here and make your case like an adult and not, sorry Bruce but it’s true, a complete fucking moron.

Yeah. I remember that. We explained the law to you, we explained the case to you, we explained the appeals court decision and then the supreme court decision to you. And you responded every time by telling us how black people were naturally stupid.

It was a great discussion.