Hate Crime Law is Unconstitutional.

Under the U.S. Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

There has been no evidence that local governments are failing to prosecute the crimes covered under hate crime legislation; thus, the federal government has no justification for claiming a necessity to intervene. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring that law enforcement and judicial system officers give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

READ IT:

The United States Constitution

UNDERSTAND IT IN TODAY'S CONTEXT:

The Rutherford Institute

Your argument is dumb, and let me tell you why...

If hate crime laws were not on the books the civil rights movement would have been a complete failure in the south. Some states would just allow racially motivated crimes to slip under the rug.

A recent example was the idiot who ran over a black guy with his pick up truck, just cause he was black and walking down the street. That idiot deserves to stay locked up for life and then some.

reply to post by Whatsreal


So would anyone else that decided to run someone over on purpose for whatever reason they have. No one should be protected more under any law. Ran him over because he was black, ran him over because he didn't like the color of his hair, both dead for no good reason.

Originally posted by Whatsreal
Your argument is dumb, and let me tell you why...

If hate crime laws were not on the books the civil rights movement would have been a complete failure in the south. Some states would just allow racially motivated crimes to slip under the rug.

A recent example was the idiot who ran over a black guy with his pick up truck, just cause he was black and walking down the street. That idiot deserves to stay locked up for life and then some.

It's not an argument. It's fact. You obviously missed the point about it being an illegal law.

reply to post by Whatsreal


Actually hate crimes are in fact illegal as they provide MORE protection under the law to minorities and special groups than others.

Now this is not to say that hate crimes do not exist. ALL violent crimes are hate crimes and should be treated the same.

Having different laws for "circumstance" and "motive" is really insane and serves no purpose other than to continue the seperation of humans with labels like "black, gay, hispanic etc."

It's insane for any group of people to have more protections than others.

That is why hate crimes, do not make sense. Logically or lawfully.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Whatsreal
Your argument is dumb, and let me tell you why...

If hate crime laws were not on the books the civil rights movement would have been a complete failure in the south. Some states would just allow racially motivated crimes to slip under the rug.

A recent example was the idiot who ran over a black guy with his pick up truck, just cause he was black and walking down the street. That idiot deserves to stay locked up for life and then some.

Hate crime legislation doesn't guarantee that racially motivated crimes are prosecuted, just that they are punished harder; crimes can still be swept under the rug.

Why though, should someone who runs over a person with a truck be punished less than someone who runs over a person with a truck while also being a racist?

Crime is crime, regardless of motivations.

Having read the OP’s opinion on the Hate crime law, as being unconstitutional, there are a few things that can be stated on that.

While the Constitution is an excellent document that governs the country, it is by no means the end all be all of the law, when it comes to the governing of the country. Laws and cases are often tried, and ultimately decided in the Federal and Supreme Court of the USA, to determine the validity, weight and how it falls under the Constitution of the United States of America. While the main body is very specific as to the three crimes that were mentioned, namely piracy, treason and counterfeiting, what it not mentioned is the reason why those three are specifically mentioned in the main document and not in the Bill of Rights. If you go back into history, those three crimes were often used, and more often than not abused, by the head of state or a governing body. If say the King of England wanted to remove what he would view as a threat to his authority, or found someone to be no longer in his favor, the charge more often than not was Treason, punishable by death. The founding fathers, were not ignorant in this fact, rather they were well versed in this aspect, and decided to make the using of these crimes to be something that has to be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in order to get a conviction. The rules of evidence are clearly outlined, and can not be circumvented by an overzealous prosecutor from using such, without the clear evidence of guilt. That means a person, can not be convicted of treason without the testimony of 2 witnesses present to give first hand accounting of such, as the penalty is grave.

The Piracy aspect goes back to a time when travel was by sea, and such occurred, giving congress the authority to act as it deems fit to stop or prevent such. And at one time counterfeiting was considered a form of Treason, and thus would have fallen back to the treason laws, but it has changed over time, to where it is no longer punishable by death for counterfeiting, rather it is now a felony.

Many of the current hate crime laws came about from the 1964 civil rights laws, that were used to enforce the amendments in the Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights, and more specifically, Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, and 26. Each of these dealt more with individual rights as it would have been protected under the Constitution, but was not considered at the time of its writing. These amendments dealt with the specifics of race, voting, equal opportunity between women and men, along with those that allowed for those who were 18 or older giving them the right to vote.

This also led to the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994. While this law is within the USC, it is a part of the federal laws that are used to govern the country.
The Supreme court rules on laws, and often look at the legality of all laws that surround a case, to see if it is within the frame work of the Constitution. Now has the court every ruled against a prior ruling, yes, but in most cases it sets a standard and a guide for the courts and all laws that come there after. After the last hate law was signed, many states went ahead and put out their own set of legislature and statutes to criminalize various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation. So while it may not be within the constitution specifically as being a federal crime, the constitution supports such laws with the amendments that are currently there.

And a point in case would be the case where it was concerning the marriage between 2 people of differing color of skin. At one time, it was considered illegal in many states, yet the Supreme court found that such laws were unconstitutional, yet no where in the constitution is the mention of marriage. Yet the implications of such are in the constitution.

I never understood the premise of these laws. If someone stabs you in the freakin neck does it really matter if they are black, white, asian or something else? They stabbed you in the neck, that is hateful in and of itself.

Short and sweet and to the point, Hate Crimes is not against the constitution. It make the breaking the amendment against discrimination in a violent manor a federal crime, Which it should be regardless of the type of discrimination whether it's White against Black, Black against White, Hetero against Gay, Gay against hetero, or Muslim against Christian etc.

reply to post by Wolfie0827


Would be nice if that was the case, but it's not. 99% of the time it is only used against white males.

reply to post by SashaHighkick

But that doesn't make it unconstitutional, That just makes it abused. But the issue in the thread was that it is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
Short and sweet and to the point, Hate Crimes is not against the constitution. It make the breaking the amendment against discrimination in a violent manor a federal crime, Which it should be regardless of the type of discrimination whether it's White against Black, Black against White, Hetero against Gay, Gay against hetero, or Muslim against Christian etc.

edit on 9-4-2012 by Wolfie0827 because: Grammer

You are making the same mistake most Americans make. Please take the time to read the Constitution and, if done so with honest intent, you will understand that the U.S. Constitution is a limiting document only - the rule book for what the different levels of government can legally do. It limits the authority of government. It does not make law, that's what Congress does. The Constitution is the document that the laws enacted by Congress are judged against. The amendments to the Constitution are an extension of the Constitution. The discrimination protections in the Constitution are limiters of government as well. They only limit what Congressionally enacted laws may be deemed legal. One cannot "break an amendment". One breaks laws enacted by Congress.

The Constitution limits what laws Congress and the States can enact legally. The Amendments to the Constitution further limit government. While States cannot legally enact discriminatory legislation, the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to enact Hate Crimes legislation because it is not one of the 3 types of legislation the federal government can enact, namely piracy, treason and counterfeiting.

States are the only governments who are granted the power to enact criminal legislation such as hate crime law.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having read the OP’s opinion on the Hate crime law, as being unconstitutional, there are a few things that can be stated on that.

While the Constitution is an excellent document that governs the country, it is by no means the end all be all of the law, when it comes to the governing of the country. Laws and cases are often tried, and ultimately decided in the Federal and Supreme Court of the USA, to determine the validity, weight and how it falls under the Constitution of the United States of America. While the main body is very specific as to the three crimes that were mentioned, namely piracy, treason and counterfeiting, what it not mentioned is the reason why those three are specifically mentioned in the main document and not in the Bill of Rights. If you go back into history, those three crimes were often used, and more often than not abused, by the head of state or a governing body.

Thank you for the background sdcigarpig.

So, what is your opinion on the legality of federal hate crime legislation. You never said. As you can see, I'm very much opposed to it. It is the States' purview, not the federal government's.

Shouldnt need laws to tell you that a hate crime is wrong.

Well, I dont know if unconstitutional in the US, but hate crime laws certainly are stupid. Crime is crime, motivation does not matter. Hate crime laws only serve to increase tensions between groups as they feel unequal before the law and selectively persecuted by the government.

I think a lot of people are neglecting the fundamental Human rights of the individual. Is that governed by state law or federal?

People have inalienable rights, and through hate crimes those rights are breached. Does that not come under federal law?

How does it work with international law where Human rights are paramount?

Ultimately I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether it is under state or federal law. The people will make that decision based on where they live.

Even if it were under state law, states would still be forced to comply with it to satisfy the will of their people. If they don't listen to their people are support these basic rights then in about 20 years you have a failed state, with millions of people boycotting them, refusing to deal with them, ostracizing them...

Who the hell would want to live in a state where hate crimes go unpunished?

It would be interesting to see, but I truly believe a state refusing to protect its own citizens would not be viable for long. That's what a lot of the racists/religious crazies/meddling nationalists don't tell you when they're busy spouting off - their ideas are not supported by the majority, and therefore they are not viable.

Originally posted by Whatsreal
Your argument is dumb, and let me tell you why...

If hate crime laws were not on the books the civil rights movement would have been a complete failure in the south. Some states would just allow racially motivated crimes to slip under the rug.

A recent example was the idiot who ran over a black guy with his pick up truck, just cause he was black and walking down the street. That idiot deserves to stay locked up for life and then some.

what a dumb response, presumably anyone deliberately running over someone could be locked up under criminal law without the necessary add on of a "hate law"

Originally posted by Doooom
Shouldnt need laws to tell you that a hate crime is wrong.

erm, you shouldn't need laws to tell you any crime is wrong

reply to post by detachedindividual

Who the hell would want to live in a state where hate crimes go unpunished?

But that is not the case in absence of hate crime legislation.

A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws

en.wikipedia.org...

All crime is punished. Hate crime laws simply establish a double standard for some crimes.

To many people today THINK they know the Constitution, yet few have the lawful understanding of the contract. Contract yes, the Constitution is a contract and every word has a very specific meaning in law, not our common speak/language and this is what THEY are keeping you from. Before one can debate whether something is Constitutional or not they need to understand contract law.

When your ready to learn what has been kept from you all these years you can start at these two threads.
Every thing I claim is footnoted and backup clearly in every law book in the Union but know one reads the dang things. For example: We the People is not you and I, the 14th Amendment made slaves of us all voluntarily, voting is a crime read Treason by Design and the list goes on. But people would rather live in fantasy land then learn the truth in law. True and total freedom awaits you when your ready to learn.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Treason by Design

www.abovetopsecret.com...
PAC Patriot Miss Beliefs