About Us

Name: Magnum, J.D.
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Name: John
Location: Gainesville, FL
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Inching Towards Big Brother: Senate Amendment Expands Thoughtcrime Legislation

Posted by Magnum, J.D. on Friday, September 28, 2007 11:06:34 AM
I want to discuss the amendment the Senate passed yesterday, but first a link.  John Hawkins wrote an excellent column compiling various un-reported (or at least under-reported) aspects of the whole "Jena 6" mess.  The title is "What They Don't Want You to Know About the Jena 6 Case."

Now on to the Senate.  An important defense authorization bill is up for passage and Democrats and their Republicrat cronies are playing politics again.  An amendment proposed by the "gentleman" from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, would expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include crimes that were committed against a person because of his sexual orientation.  The AP has the story here.

The measure was named the "Matthew Shepard Act" after the young, homosexual man who was savagely beaten in Wyoming back in 1998.  The Republican Senator from Wyoming (whose name escapes me) even brought enlarged photos of Shepard to the floor of the Senate in order to "put a human face" on the importance of the legislation.

One of the objections that advocates of hate crime legislation cannot answer is that this type of crime punishes a person for their thoughts.  Of course, Kennedy and other sponsors of the amendment argued that it does not, but who do they think they're kidding? 

What happened to Matthew Shepard was horrible.  It would have been just as horrible if those men had beaten him because they didn't like the shirt he was wearing.  What difference does it make that they did it because they believed him to be a homosexual?  Is it immoral and wrong to hate someone because he is a homosexual or because his skin is a different color than yours?  Of course it's wrong.  But that doesn't mean it should be a crime in and of itself.  That's exactly what hate crime legislation does.  Anyone who says otherwise is intellectually bankrupt (at best) and, more likely, is being intentionally deceitful.

Look at it this way.  How can you even charge a person under a hate crime statute without probing his thoughts?  It's an element of the crime, for crying out loud!  You can read the current statute for yourself at this site.  The relevant section is 18 U.S.C s. 245(b)(2), but you might want to read all of it for context.

Here's my point.  If beating a person and dragging him behind your vehicle is a crime, what is the need to probe that person's mind in order to create another crime?  Isn't it enough to punish that person for his evil act without also punishing him for his evil thoughts?  The answer, I think, is that there is no need and it's sufficient to punish a person for his acts.  How legislators can say with a straight face that this doesn't violate the First Amendment is utterly beyond me.  Despite several Senators who said otherwise, I think the Supreme Court agrees with me.  See R.A.V. v. St. Paul.  Fortunately, this amendment probably won't survive President Bush's veto.  We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another poor man's constitutional amendment?

Posted by Magnum, J.D. on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:07:31 PM
The occasions upon which I find myself in sharp disagreement with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah are truly few and far between.  To be sure, he is one of the most respected, experienced and intelligent members of the Senate.  However, this afternoon I was unpleasantly surprised at what he said on the Senate floor.

There is a measure before the Senate that would give to the District of Columbia a voting member of the House of Representatives.  Presently, the District is represented by a non-voting delegate who can speak on the floor and (I believe, but haven't had time to check on it) can also participate in House committee proceedings.

Senator Hatch was indignant that some of his colleagues would not vote to invoke cloture in order to vote on the bill.  He expressed his strong support for the bill and unequivocally stated that there is no constitutional problem with it.  In any event, he added, the bill contains a provision that allows for "expedited" review by the Supreme Court.  So, if there were any constitutional problem, it would quickly be resolved.

I think that Senator Hatch and the other sponsors of the bill could not possibly be more wrong on this issue.  The Constitution does not give Congress the power to change our system of government in this way.  A change of this sort requires an amendment to the Constitution. 

Take out your pocket copies of the Constitution and turn to Article I. 

Read Section 2. 

You'll notice that all references are to the States.  Last I checked, D.C. was not a state.  Perhaps it should be; I really don't know and that's really a topic for a different post.  As it stands now, the District of Columbia is not a state and therefore, under our Constitution, it cannot be represented in the House by a voting member.

The solution is simple: amend the Constitution to provide representation to the residents of our capital.  The Twenty-Third Amendment already fixed a similar problem of representation in D.C.  Why not do the right thing--the constitutional thing--and amend the Constitution again? 

Residents of D.C. should be represented just as every other citizen of this country.  I don't think there is much, if any, disagreement over that.  However, we can't sacrifice our constitutional process in order to achieve that egalitarian result.  Senators Hatch, Lieberman, and the others who support the bill should step up and take the initiative in the amendment process.  It's a difficult process, but if there is as much bi-partisan support for this bill as they say there is (and I have no reason to doubt them) then passing a constitutional amendment should not require that much more effort. 

Don't our constitutional heritage and the rule of law merit at least a try at doing it the right way? 

I certainly think so.  It disappoints me that a man I respect as much as Senator Hatch does not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I always knew liberals acted like 4 year olds . . .

Posted by Magnum, J.D. on Monday, September 10, 2007 2:46:05 PM
 . . . but today was an eminently childish display of that quality during the House Armed Services Committee hearing with General David Petraeus.  If you think I'm talking about the Code Pink people (and I use the term "people" loosely), then you're only partially right.  Before, General Petraeus began to speak, members of the Committee were given a chance to give a "brief" opening statement. 

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) stayed just this side of rolling on the floor, kicking and screaming, in essentially declaring to General Petraeus, before the general had even uttered a word, that the war in Iraq is a failure.  Don't get me wrong, the congressman was very dignified and eloquent in his remarks.  Nevertheless, his point was clear: "I've already made up my mind on this issue and I really don't care what you have to say except insofar as it will allow me to score some political points over the course of your testimony and questioning." 

Throughout the proceedings, members of the Committee and the General were interrupted by Code Pink protesters.  Eventually, General Petraeus was able to give his remarks.  No sooner had he finished than Code Pink picked up where Congressman Lantos had left off.  "General Petraeus, we don't believe you!" one woman shouted.  She continued to shout "I have a right to be heard!" as she was escorted out of the chamber.  I'll try to find the video, if possible, because I think it is very telling as to how Democrats and liberals react when they are met with facts that don't fit their agenda.  Rather than save some face and appear to be somewhat rational, that middle-aged woman was literally dragged out of the chamber, struggling, whining, and screaming.  I suppose I really shouldn't have expected any less.


UPDATE:

I knew that there would be video of the committee hearing out there somewhere, it just took me a couple minutes to find it.  Hot Air has a page with a couple videos here.  The one I referred to is the one at the top.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »