September 25, 2018, 03:44:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Expanding Double Jeopardy - The wrong direction on hate crimes.  (Read 1094 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7688



« on: August 07, 2009, 04:49:08 PM »

Quote
Expanding Double Jeopardy
The wrong direction on hate crimes.


By David Rittgers

Welcome to a new age of double jeopardy. The hate-crime statute just passed by Congress expands the potential for federal prosecutions to chilling new levels, and even creates the possibility of retrials for crimes that have already been ruled on by state courts. In one fell swoop, lawmakers have virtually ensured legal proceedings that obviously violate the Bill of Rights — and this, for some reason, is being widely hailed as a triumph of justice.

The lack of rigorous debate over this policy is ominous. In the Senate, the hate-crime legislation was not even adopted as a stand-alone measure, but as an add-on to another bill. This relative stealth aside, the flourish of the president’s signature pen will radically redraw the boundaries between state and federal jurisprudence.

Quote
...Its defining feature is not that it allows federal prosecution of crimes motivated by the race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim. What’s significant is that it greatly expands the federal government’s jurisdiction to prosecute cases that properly belong in a state court.

In legal terms, this law achieves its aims through federal authority over interstate commerce. If someone assaults you by throwing a cell phone at you, what Congress has done is enabled the prosecution of the thrower as a function of the fact that the cell phone was made in Japan, and therefore must have crossed state lines. To non-lawyers, that surely sounds absurd — which is precisely why this law’s drastic overreach is so stark...

Will State Government disappear in the future?  Obsolete?  Replaced by Obama Administration?

Quote
The power to reprosecute is not one we should grant to any government, much less one with a politicized selection of who will be haled into court. For evidence, look no further than the Duke lacrosse non-rape case a few years ago. If the trial had gone to court and ended in acquittal, would we now be in federal court for a second round? The recent Department of Justice decision not to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who engaged in voter intimidation last November illustrates the flip side of this coin. Decisions to prosecute or not based on race undermine the rule of law.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkzNGQ2YzBiN2ZjMjkxOTM4MTUyMDhhN2RhYjA2OTQ=

Now, our government through bills like HR 3200 is promoting special consideration based on race, ethnic, and other political determined 'disparity'. 

Welcome to the new institutionalized racism.  Will the Supreme Court will decide things based not on the law, but on their personal empathy for one party over another?  Maybe the nation will save time and money in this new way of doing things?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7688



« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2009, 05:06:31 PM »

When I hear Obama talk about creating a common market of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, to compete with the EU and other regional markets, I just don't understand.

The U.S. is a large market, the EU is just another form of such a market.  Canada is a group of provinces, much like the U.S. and the EU.

He must think the U.S. is just one giant state, ripe for the plucking, and that's how it seems to be going. 

All taxpayers are being billed in the future for his government favoritism.  There always was favoritism, but his administration is on steroids, and includes all kinds of foreign businesses, nations, and people.

Nothing for all the little people on Main Street.  They don't seem to matter in the Obama grand vision of the future.

jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7688



« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2009, 05:12:58 PM »

There is some old thinking back from when the nation was founded.

Is it easier to corrupt 12 honest men or one politically appointed judge?  

Is it easier to corrupt fifty state legislators and governors, or one legislature and president in Washington?

The Feds are seeming to take over all the funding for schools, local and state government, dole out money to keep things running. 

They dump Medicaid funding on the States.  They CUT Medicare benefits.  Medicare covers the old and the disabled.  Is the Federal goal to bankrupt the states, like California?  Force them to do the dirty work of raising taxes to cover all the Federal mandated benefits and then the citizens will look to the Feds (Obama) for salvation?

Fifty independent states was a firewall put in place by our founding fathers.  It should be shored up and reinforced.

Does a central government ever make things better?  Better government?  Longer lasting?  Less corrupt?

jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 0.263 seconds with 19 queries.