Killing someone because they're a white person / Scientologist / wealthy / etc can land you in the big house for 15, 20 years.
Let's consider: in both cases the crime itself is identical. (assume someone who is sane and uncoerced chooses to kill another in "cold blood," a person dies, murder is bad, etc). But it's the kind of motivation that makes the two differ in penalistic gravity.
What separates a "hate crime" from an ordinary crime, then, that makes it a much more serious crime, is a person's religious or political leanings. Killing someone is a crime in and of itself -- but to punish a criminal even more for their unpopular ideology makes hate crimes (legally) in the category of "thought crimes", in effect granting the authority to tell people that certain mental states / beliefs are criminal. We can see "hate crimes" as being a property/personhood crime accompanied by a (legally designated) crime of speech/communication/political beliefs, then.
The bummer news about that is that the First Amendment of the United States says that people are entitled to free speech -- that is to say, no US court can declare speech or belief to be criminal.
A "hate crime" is thus unconstitutional in the United States, as well as any other country which grants the freedom of speech. As much as punks and Christian-killing radical Muslims (of which, there are many) really grind my gears, I can't think of any reason why we should pretend that "hate crimes" are a necessary for justice to be served. If someone commits a real crime, punish them for that. But leave the thought policing to North Korea, China, and clinics that cure transvestism and other forms of mental illness.
If today, people can be thrown in jail for 10 years just because they don't like (insert group here), who's to say that people won't be thrown in jail for critiquing governments or institutions guilty of crimes in the future? (or making hatred a crime in and of itself, even when it is justified) It's clear that hate crimes could only gain bipartisan support within the US because liberals want to force everyone to be nice and conservatives want to profit from people being held in prison unnecessarily,
Expecting some SJW hate here. Well go read the Constitution, 1984, and Atlas Shrugged, then rethink your assumptions before you respond with the same kind of hatred which you don't think people are welcome to have ( ※ -- a contradiction)
rapping doesn't count as singing you ltittle psycho. why do you care so much about crimes? are you a crimer trying to make crimes legal? okay. you need to leave epicmafai i think
lmao now you're trying to bring vocalary into this? i can sing better than you. skype call me right now i'll slay your a.ss with my vocalings
deletedalmost 8 years
Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised. [Footnote 8]
The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION."
In case you missed it, this is saying that the Supreme Court didn't get their verdict in Ex Part McCardle.
Sounds to me like you're arguing about what the Exceptions Clause means.
Zero jurisdiction-stripping cases broadly and unambiguously permit preclusion of judicial review.
Battaglia v. General Motors Corp. held that Congress cannot legislate the withdrawal of either federal or state jurisdiction if such withdrawal violates a constitutional right.
Cya.
deletedalmost 8 years
"Page 74 U. S. 515
It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal, and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer.
Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised. [Footnote 8]
The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION."
deletedalmost 8 years
It's probably tough knowing less than 60% of my vocabulary
can you please stop typing. if crimes existed we wouldn't have jails.
deletedalmost 8 years
I think you're misunderstanding the case. I understand exactly what the exceptions clause means. In Ex Part McCardle, the exceptions clause was used as the justification to write off the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court, effectively and factually giving the legislative branch control over the judiciary branches part of the process.
I'm not arguing about what the exceptions clause means. I'm showing you an actual case where the exceptions clause was abused.
The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows:
"§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,"
&c.
And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,
"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."
What part of this screams the constitution is never abused to you?
deletedalmost 8 years
And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,
"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."
And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,
"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."
And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,
"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."
The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows:
"§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,"
&c.
And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,
"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."
If you agree with this, I don't like your politics, bub.
deletedalmost 8 years
Because Ex Parte McCardle, which I linked in full above, is an example of how dangerous this can be, and how completely the legislative branch can defeat the judiciary branch in any given area.
Where in any of what you just pasted does the executive strip the judiciary of its appellate jurisdiction?
deletedalmost 8 years
And yes, I did ace this course.
deletedalmost 8 years
Ex parte McCardle
74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Syllabus
1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is conferred by the Constitution, and not derived from acts of Congress, but is conferred "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress may make," and, therefore, acts of Congress affirming such jurisdiction have always been construed as excepting from it all cases not expressly described and provided for.
2. When, therefore, Congress enacts that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the Circuit Courts in certain cases, the act operates as a negation or exception of such jurisdiction in other cases, and the repeal of the act necessarily negatives jurisdiction under it of these cases also.
3. The repeal of such an act, pending an appeal provided for by it, is not an exercise of judicial power by the legislature, no matter whether the repeal takes effect before or after argument of the appeal.
4. The act of 27th March, 1868, repealing that provision of the act of 5th of February, 1867, to amend the Judicial Act of 1789, which authorized appeals to this court from the decisions of the Circuit Courts in cases of habeas corpus, does not except from the appellate jurisdiction of this
That's effing scary dude. The constitution is too old.
