Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Bush to veto sexual orientation hate crimes bill

Old 05-03-07, 04:22 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Bush to veto sexual orientation hate crimes bill

The House passed it today. This is the White House statement:

"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State’s own hate crimes law."

"H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.

"Moreover, the bill’s proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.
Pretty much a jumble of contradictory reasons. I don't agree with hate crimes legislation, but they're not even trying to be consistent in giving reasons for their opposition. I have a strong feeling that if this bill did not include sexual orientation Bush would sign it.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 04:26 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,951
It is unconstitutional if you ask me for the reasons given in the last paragraph quoted.

I also don't know how it could stand up under Morrison.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 04:36 PM
  #3  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Pocket veto if it gets past the Senate.

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...Y4MjUzOThiYjY=
May 01, 2007, 4:30 a.m.

Hating Hate

By The Editors


Hate crimes “are different” from other crimes: That was the argument for hate-crimes laws that Al Gore made during the 2000 campaign, and it is the argument that we are going to hear again this week, as Congress takes up federal legislation on the subject. Crimes motivated by hostility to the victim’s race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation are said to be different chiefly because they, supposedly, instill fear in entire communities and generate social division.

Even if this generalization is true—and it is not obvious that it is—it should not end our thought about hate. There is no evidence that adding hate-crimes laws on top of regular criminal laws does anything to deter these acts. Nor is there any evidence that federal action is needed. Most states already have hate-crimes laws; the federal government has a hate-crimes law that applies to victims who were engaged in federally protected activities, such as holding rallies. The proposed legislation would allow the federal government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, whether or not federally protected activities were involved, and to assist local law enforcement in fighting them. But there is no evidence that local law enforcement has a special need for federal resources to help it combat hate crimes.

Many proponents of hate-crimes laws profess to have no desire to move against free speech. But we fear that it may be a short jump from prosecuting “hate crimes” to prosecuting “hate speech.” It is true that the law routinely looks into defendants’ motives, and that some motives tend to draw tougher sentences than others. But our social divisions, especially over homosexuality, make it especially dangerous for the law to inquire into defendants’ prejudices—and “prejudices.” We want to deter and punish crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, and everyone else. But we do not want to open the door to legal punishment for harboring incorrect thoughts about controversial issues—especially when those incorrect thoughts are part of the historic teaching of our major religions.

The bill’s sponsors seem, at best, oblivious to the risks. The bill’s definition of violence includes intimidation, which leaves considerable room for interpretation in the hate-crimes context. It also empowers the attorney general to help states enforce their own hate-crimes laws, which means that a liberal state, in concert with a liberal administration in Washington, could involve the federal government in envelope-pushing investigations and prosecutions.

A new federal law in this area is unnecessary and dangerous, and ought to be defeated.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 04:44 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,519
Good, we're all equal. What a concept...
Artman is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 04:52 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
If he does veto the bill, we'll never get the chance to feel better about the justice system though.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 04:58 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
I hate hate crime laws.

I think all of them are unnecessary and easy for the justice system to abuse. I think all violent crime sentencing should be stricter whether it is a white guy beating up a black guy, or a hispanic guy beating up a gay guy, or a woman beating up someone because they are jewish, etc etc etc. All violent crime is fueled by some hate, so what is the point of trying to make a judgement on how much hate was involved?
IMRICKJAMES is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 05:21 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Yeah, but see, the problem is that we already have federal hate crimes legislation. This seems like it's just Bush pandering to homophobes (shocking, I know).
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 05:30 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Yeah, but see, the problem is that we already have federal hate crimes legislation. This seems like it's just Bush pandering to homophobes (shocking, I know).
I think that would be a better argument if Bush signed federal hate crime laws into effect. I tend to see him as trying to keep the hate crime stuff from expanding, which I would support. If the original law had sexual orientation, and this new law said "race" I would feel the same way.

Anyway, I don't see this as pandering or inconsistent with Bush and the Repubs position.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 05:38 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the 870
Posts: 21,186
forget God hates F**S more like Bush hates F**S and we elected this asshole
Bacon is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:05 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,048
Yeehaw! Lets go kill us sum kweers!

Jason is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:07 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,442
Originally Posted by IMRICKJAMES
I hate hate crime laws.

I think all of them are unnecessary and easy for the justice system to abuse. I think all violent crime sentencing should be stricter whether it is a white guy beating up a black guy, or a hispanic guy beating up a gay guy, or a woman beating up someone because they are jewish, etc etc etc. All violent crime is fueled by some hate, so what is the point of trying to make a judgement on how much hate was involved?


Like Artman said "Good, we're all equal. What a concept..."

I completely agree.
General Zod is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:12 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,702
good
and before someone jumps to the wrong conclusion, I'm against all "hate crime" laws
it's already illegal to harras, assault or kill someone. there's too much room for abuse with "hate crime" laws
mikehunt is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:27 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
We should have Mean Crime laws.

Taking someone's wallet is a crime, but taking someone's wallet and saying something that hurts their feelings too? That's just Mean and should carry additional penalties.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:28 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
I know this is going to divert the flow of this thread but its stuff like this that, in my humble opinion, do more harm than good when it comes to equality.

I'm not saying they are the same thing, but hate crime laws, and things like affirmative action do more to divide than unite. You dont create equality by trying to force it. How can you be equal when there are things like affirmative action that really say you arent equal and you need special help to be or hate crime laws that say you arent and people will be prosecuted under special circumstances.
IMRICKJAMES is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:52 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by IMRICKJAMES
I know this is going to divert the flow of this thread but its stuff like this that, in my humble opinion, do more harm than good when it comes to equality.

I'm not saying they are the same thing, but hate crime laws, and things like affirmative action do more to divide than unite. You dont create equality by trying to force it. How can you be equal when there are things like affirmative action that really say you arent equal and you need special help to be or hate crime laws that say you arent and people will be prosecuted under special circumstances.
And all things being equal, you would be correct. But all things are most certainly not equal. Blacks in this country have lower income per capita, have a shorter life expectancy and a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration. Homosexuals in this country are routinely attacked, derided, and driven out of the workplace with no reprecussions.

This inequality is the reality of our society -- the question is how you're going to deal with it. Do you stick your head in the sand and say that everyone is equal now, there is no bigotry or discrimination? Do you shrug your shoulders and allow this inequality to continue? Or do you take steps to correct this inequality so that in the future all men truly can be considered equal?
NCMojo is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:57 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,951
So if a straight white person is poor and has been attacked or harrassed during their life should government give them a helping hand?

Government should treat everyone equally. Government should not force everyone to treat everyone else equally.

Last edited by Red Dog; 05-03-07 at 06:59 PM.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 06:58 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Or do you fight discrimination by discriminating? I don't think you do, and still get people to buy into the idea of equality.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 07:21 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by NCMojo
And all things being equal, you would be correct. But all things are most certainly not equal. Blacks in this country have lower income per capita, have a shorter life expectancy and a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration.
Where is the proof that these numbers are completely due to evil racist conspiracies? If you put one black next to another and one is making $100,000, will live to 90 and never been in jail and the other is making 20,000, will probably die at 65 and been in jail 4 times you cant prove that one was a victim of racism and the other wasn't.

Am I saying no racism exists? No. Am I saying that you should fix racism and inequality by other methods that using racism to fight racism like affirmative action? Its most funny because lets face it, the most extremely racist people around...the type that wouldnt hire someone to the kinds of jobs covered by affirmative action, are too stupid and uneducated to be in a position of power at such a company. Most of the time no one running a company out to make as much money as possible isn't going to pass up a more qualified african american or asian or etc. to hire a white guy that will cost them money.

In many cases I believe racism is used to mask underlying problems that it may or may not have had a big factor in. You can't blanket statement say that racism is why blacks make less money, or they've been in jail more, or have more fatherless families, etc etc etc. Its used as a crutch in many cases. If you look at it case by case (hypothetically, because examining every black person in america is impossible) I would imagine for every one true victim of racism there are 10 using it as a crutch for their own failings. Again, hypothetically since no one really knows, but I think thats the case. One person may be making near minimum wage and struggling because he is a true victim, while another person may be making minimum wage because back in high school he chose to do drugs, hang out in a gang, and focus on playing basketball or football instead of studying hard for the SATs and going to college, getting a degree and make something out of themselves. Its sad to see so many of my african american friends with such a defeatist attitude that they will never make something out of themselves, when right next to me are some african americans that did just that. But instead of picking their brains, learning from them, etc. they just call them sell outs.
IMRICKJAMES is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 07:33 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,368
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Blacks in this country have lower income per capita, have a shorter life expectancy and a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration. Homosexuals in this country are routinely attacked, derided, and driven out of the workplace with no reprecussions.

This inequality is the reality of our society -- the question is how you're going to deal with it. Do you stick your head in the sand and say that everyone is equal now, there is no bigotry or discrimination? Do you shrug your shoulders and allow this inequality to continue? Or do you take steps to correct this inequality so that in the future all men truly can be considered equal?
Ah yes, because adding another 3 years on to a sentence will make everything fine and dandy. I think you are the one with his head in the sand.
bwvanh114 is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 07:38 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by kvrdave
I think that would be a better argument if Bush signed federal hate crime laws into effect. I tend to see him as trying to keep the hate crime stuff from expanding, which I would support. If the original law had sexual orientation, and this new law said "race" I would feel the same way.

Anyway, I don't see this as pandering or inconsistent with Bush and the Repubs position.
I guarantee you that if this bill was expanding the federal hate crimes statute to include race, Bush would sign it. He's not exactly the poster boy for shrinking federal power. This is about pandering to homophobes.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 07:42 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
I guarantee you that if this bill was expanding the federal hate crimes statute to include race, Bush would sign it. He's not exactly the poster boy for shrinking federal power. This is about pandering to homophobes.
hate crime statutes already include race, that was the main thing about the original hate crime laws
IMRICKJAMES is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 09:24 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,519
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
This is about pandering to homophobes.
I'm hoping the discussion can rise above this kind of thing Tracer. I undertand you feel strongly on this, but name calling and generalizations do not a strong argument make.

My signature is a quote I recently heard on the radio, in front of a sizable audience. I listen to a station which broadcasts similar stuff every wk. Trust me, homosexuals have nothing to fear about the future, the marriage amendments will be overturned and they will be given even greater rights than the rest. Christians will be silenced by force, and it will get worse from there. I wish we could jump ahead 30 yrs and take a look... or maybe I don't.
Artman is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 09:36 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,513
And I've heard gay rallies in Portland, OR call for similar "extinction" of the breeders.

Please.

We have extremism in EVERY group of people, not just your common white redneck male, drinking a beer, doing circles in the middle of his farm with his F-150.

The fact is there are many who are tolerant of gay behavior--don't agree with it though--and would easily crush any type of insane action by a wacked out so-called Christian Leader who has a following.

We don't need hate crimes. We need intelligent and fair prosecuting.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 11:25 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Artman
I'm hoping the discussion can rise above this kind of thing Tracer. I undertand you feel strongly on this, but name calling and generalizations do not a strong argument make
You're kidding, right?

So I suppose we shouldn't call racists racists, because that would be name calling. There's being fair and then there's sticking your head in the sand.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 05-03-07, 11:28 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
And I've heard gay rallies in Portland, OR call for similar "extinction" of the breeders.
Get back to me when those people have followers that constitute at least 10% of the population, get their own national radio and TV shows, and advise members of government.
Tracer Bullet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.