Epicmafia

Hate crimes don't exist

over 8 years

Here's something the govt says:

Killing someone may land you 5, 10 years in jail.
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)

deletedover 8 years

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/506/case.html Here is a direct link to the most relevant example of appellate jurisdiction being written away, and how dangerous it could be.

deletedover 8 years

...The Klein Court noted that, if Congress had "simply denied the right of appeal in a particular class of cases," the act would have been a valid exercise of legislative power under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause. However, the Court determined that the statute withheld jurisdiction only as a means to an end, and that its purpose was to negate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the effect of a presidential pardon. Congress did have the power, the Court averred, to change underlying substantive law upon which the claim had been litigated, Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. (1856), but Congress could not do so by invading the President's power to pardon, nor to direct a particular decision in a pending case."

deletedover 8 years

...The seminal decision on jurisdiction-stripping statutes under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause came shortly after the Civil War. Ex parte McCardle (1869) involved a newspaper editor in military custody, who had appealed a lower federal court's denial of habeas corpus relief to the United States Supreme Court, pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. After the Supreme Court heard oral argument, Congress repealed the provisions of the statute that had authorized Supreme Court review. The Court concluded that, pursuant to Congress's power under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause, it had no jurisdiction to decide the case. The Court also expressed a deferential view toward legislative acts in this context, noting: "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given in express words."

Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court found that a different jurisdiction-stripping statute did not fall within the Congress's Appellate Jurisdiction Clause power. In United States v. Klein (1871), Congress had enacted a statute which provided that persons whose property had been seized during the Civil War could recover proceeds of their property if they proved they had not given aid to the rebellion during the War. The Supreme Court had previously held that a presidential pardon for such activities was proof that a person had not given aid to the rebellion. United States v. Padelford (1870). In Klein, the claimant had succeeded in the lower court, but the government had appealed. While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Congress passed a law that attempted to reverse the holding in Padelford. The new law required courts to treat the pardon as proof of disloyalty, and on proof of such pardon, the jurisdiction of the court would cease and the suit be dismissed.

deletedover 8 years

...Early on, Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth had gone further and suggested that "If Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction." Wiscart v. D'Auchy (1796). In dissent, Justice James Wilson maintained that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction flowed directly from the Constitution until Congress took steps to make exceptions to it. Justice Wilson's dissenting view in Wiscart garnered a majority vote in DuRousseau v. United States (1810). Chief Justice John Marshall's unanimous majority opinion recognized that the appellate jurisdiction is created by the Constitution, not by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Nevertheless, utilizing standard rules for statutory interpretation, the DuRousseau Court explained that Congress had described particular aspects of the Court's jurisdiction in that statute, "and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negative of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it." In other words, by providing for certain classes of appeals to reach the Supreme Court, Congress tacitly intended to "except" all others from Supreme Court review.

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Ableman v. Booth (1859), Justice Story and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, respectively, described the need to provide for Supreme Court review of decisions of the states' highest courts, in order, as Chief Justice Taney put it, "to secure the independence and supremacy of the General Government in the sphere of action assigned to it; [and] to make the Constitution and laws of the United States uniform, and the same in every State."

deletedover 8 years

Peta says

(2) OK, I'm interested. Show me where the Constitution enables the executive to infringe on the judiciary's Art. III powers.

(3) You're right. History disagrees with the statement that the people who declared independence from and defeated the most powerful empire in world history, and then created from scratch a secular constitutional republic that values individual liberty and that remains the world's only superpower through well over two centuries of peaceful transitions of power, are extremely unimpressive dudes.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/117/appellate-jurisdiction-clause

I'll quote the relevant section for you, it's a bit long, and it's actually congress that can write off appellate jurisdiction of the Court, but the nonetheless my point holds:

...The Appellate Jurisdiction Clause also seemingly grants Congress unbounded authority to make "Exceptions" to the appellate jurisdiction. The Convention delegates at first rejected a clause providing that "the Judicial power shall be exercised in such manner as the Legislature shall direct"; but later, after the judicial power was defined in what eventually became Article III, the Framers appended this clause, permitting, as Federalists like John Marshall claimed, a broad power of Congress to regulate the appeals process to the Supreme Court. Justice Story later opined that Congress possessed "the utmost latitude" in limiting classes of cases that could reach the Supreme Court, so long as "the whole judicial power" was "vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under [Congress's] authority." Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)...

Peta

over 8 years

(2) OK, I'm interested. Show me where the Constitution enables the executive to infringe on the judiciary's Art. III powers.

(3) You're right. History disagrees with the statement that the people who declared independence from and defeated the most powerful empire in world history, and then created from scratch a secular constitutional republic that values individual liberty and that remains the world's only superpower through well over two centuries of peaceful transitions of power, are extremely unimpressive dudes.

deletedover 8 years

What's so bad about tyranny though? Think we need ourselves a good tyrant.

deletedover 8 years

Peta says

(1) Ah, yes. Creating a new document from scratch will be much easier than passing an amendment. Especially since you've given an abundance of reasons to do so.

(2) Appellate jurisdiction is not a power of Congress.

(3) It's easy when history agrees with me.

1. I didn't say it would be practical, I said it would be ideal.

2. I changed that to say Supreme Court before you posted, I'm not perfect, just right.

3. I don't think history agrees with your subjective opinion that the founding fathers were super duper cool

Peta

over 8 years

(1) Ah, yes. Creating a new document from scratch will be much easier than passing an amendment. Especially since you've given an abundance of reasons to do so.

(2) Appellate jurisdiction is not a power of Congress.

(3) It's easy when history agrees with me.

deletedover 8 years

Peta says

Recidivism says

1. Amendments aren't enough.

2. Yes, it is. I'll give you an example: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is successfully being used to justify the possession of assault weapons.

3. Then prove me wrong with sources.

(1) Oh, say more.

(2) I agree with you that the Second Amendment is a source of evil. Now please support your argument that "it's primarily used to justify bigotry and outdated traditions."

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

1. I want a new and modern constitution, done all at once, ideally. Amendments are hard to pass.

2. I think the second amendment is one example of that. Off of the top of my head, the executive branch can write off the appellate jurisdiction of The Supreme Court with a flick of their wrist as per the constitution, although it's only been done once. Imagine if Trump decides to do that. There are a lot of examples that I don't have memorized.

3. Cheeky.

Peta

over 8 years

Recidivism says

1. Amendments aren't enough.

2. Yes, it is. I'll give you an example: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is successfully being used to justify the possession of assault weapons.

3. Then prove me wrong with sources.

(1) Oh, say more.

(2) I agree with you that the Second Amendment is a source of evil. Now please support your argument that "it's primarily used to justify bigotry and outdated traditions."

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

deletedover 8 years

1. Amendments aren't enough.

2. Yes, it is. I'll give you an example: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is successfully being used to justify the possession of assault weapons.

3. Then prove me wrong with sources.

Peta

over 8 years

Recidivism says

I'm not going to do your breaking up the quotes thing but

1. As impressive as it was in the 18th century, I'd much rather have something modern and built with my generation in mind. Something like Norway or Sweden has. The constitution can be done away with now.

2. Yes, it is. The subjectivity of language used in the 18th century when applied to modern situations inherently leads to the document being used to justify outdated beliefs by accusing anyone who criticizes it as iconoclastic, kind of like you're doing to me now.

3. I'm a history major. The founding fathers were largely unimpressive, largely immoral, and succeeded primarily due to timing, not brilliance.

(1) That's what amendments are for.

(2) No, it is not, and none of what you said in this paragraph, even if it is true, supports that claim. I haven't accused you of iconoclasm. I never said the Constitution was perfect and I don't think it is. But a constitutional republic is a damn good form of government. If you have a better suggestion for a country like the U.S., please say so.

(3) As impressed as I am by your incomplete undergraduate degree, your grasp of history might not be as firm as you think it is.

deletedover 8 years

You know who was way more impressive than the founding fathers? Cortes. That dude arrived on a foreign land, burned his boats behind him, and conquered an Empire that rivaled Rome at its peak from scratch.

deletedover 8 years

I'm not going to do your breaking up the quotes thing but

1. As impressive as it was in the 18th century, I'd much rather have something modern and built with my generation in mind. Something like Norway or Sweden has. The constitution can be done away with now.

2. Yes, it is. The subjectivity of language used in the 18th century when applied to modern situations inherently leads to the document being used to justify outdated beliefs by accusing anyone who criticizes it as iconoclastic, kind of like you're doing to me now.

3. I'm a history major. The founding fathers were largely unimpressive, largely immoral, and succeeded primarily due to timing, not brilliance.

thecolonel

over 8 years

it's only true if you live in a high storm area

deletedover 8 years

just looked it up, it looks pretty true. thats craaazy

Peta

over 8 years

Recidivism says

Peta says

Recidivism says

I don't really see what makes it all that special to begin with. In this day and age it is more or less a subjective talking point for people using it to validate bigotry and outdated traditions.

It's a form of government designed to guarantee rule by law and ward off tyranny.

Okay but there are a lot of those now, it's not special,

It's not "special" but it's an impressive achievement and an outstanding document.

Recidivism says

and it's primarily used to justify bigotry and outdated traditions in the name of Ye Olde Great Holy Founding Fathers,

No, it's not.

Recidivism says

who really weren't all that special either for the most part.

You may not have the best grasp of history.

Peta

over 8 years

Lono says

Peta says

You're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to die at the hands of an Islamic terrorist in the United States.

for some reason i feel like this fact is wrong as ****

Well then I guess it's a good thing your feelings don't govern reality.

deletedover 8 years

Peta says

Recidivism says

I don't really see what makes it all that special to begin with. In this day and age it is more or less a subjective talking point for people using it to validate bigotry and outdated traditions.

It's a form of government designed to guarantee rule by law and ward off tyranny.

Okay but there are a lot of those now, it's not special, and it's primarily used to justify bigotry and outdated traditions in the name of Ye Olde Great Holy Founding Fathers, who really weren't all that special either for the most part.

deletedover 8 years

Peta says

You're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to die at the hands of an Islamic terrorist in the United States.

for some reason i feel like this fact is wrong as ****

Peta

over 8 years

Recidivism says

I don't really see what makes it all that special to begin with. In this day and age it is more or less a subjective talking point for people using it to validate bigotry and outdated traditions.

It's a form of government designed to guarantee rule by law and ward off tyranny.

Peta

over 8 years

"Christian-killing radical Muslims (of which, there are many) really grind my gears"

You're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to die at the hands of an Islamic terrorist in the United States.

deletedover 8 years

I don't really see what makes it all that special to begin with. In this day and age it is more or less a subjective talking point for people using it to validate bigotry and outdated traditions.

Peta

over 8 years

Recidivism says

I don't think an 18th century document should govern the fates of everyone to come after it forever, as if the world were completely static.

That seems kind of anachronistic and wrongheaded to me. But that's just me!

That's why it's undergone numerous modifications since its creation.