"Concerned Women" thank Bush for Hate Crimes veto pledge

[Bluebear]

Contact: Sarah Rode, Concerned Women for America, 202-488-7000 ext. 127



WASHINGTON, May 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- "We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America. The Executive Office of the President has issued a statement promising to veto "hate crimes" bill H.R. 1592 should it be approved in Congress today. The statement follows:

"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."

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwfa0503.htm

[enki23]

1. "hate crimes" are determined by motive, not by the class of the victim

the law always has, and always will prosecute crimes differently when the motives behind the crime are different. a hit and run accident which kills a black victim should not, and would not be prosecuted differently under this law than one which kills a white victim. this is about *motive*. taking this bullshit to its logical end, and we must not treat manslaughter cases any different from first degree murders. self defense, in fact, is no defense, if you want to be completely retarded about it. much, if not most of the rationale for the "global war on terror" depends very heavily on treating crimes differently based on the motives which prompted them.

obviously, even these fools differentiate criminal acts by motive. they only differ in which particular motives they feel are important. they don't feel crimes against people based on their ethnicity, race, gender, orientation, etc. are in any way worse than crimes committed against them for more typical reasons. a gay bashing, for instance, is not different from a bar fight. the ultimate reason they feel this way, of course, is that they represent the people who commit, and who sympathize with those who commit those crimes we call "hate crimes."

while we're at it, it's about time we dropped the "hate crimes" label. it's a weak, and completely inadequate term. let's call these crimes what they are: domestic terrorism.

[Amy6627]

2. Right on!

[snappyturtle]

3. If you re-read the section I just copied from your post:

"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.

I actually think a veto of this bill is compatible with *'s torture policy!!

[denverbill]

4. As usual, the spokesman for 'Concerned Women' is a man. n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

7. I missed that the first time I read it

The "Contact: Sarah Rode" line had me fooled. Very clever of them. x(

[JackBeck]

5. Cheney really hates his daughter

her partner and his soon to be born grandchild.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. Pardon me but don't police and judges have "special status". Concerned liars.

PUKES