Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[Bush92]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

 

[Bush92]

White man charged with knockout game hate crime. Racial hypocrisy - CSMonitor.com
Also an example of the law not being applied fairly.

 

[Sunni Man]

Hate crime laws only apply to white people. .....

 

[Bush92]

Hate crime laws only apply to white people. .....

Thank you for validating one of my points.

 

[martybegan]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

 

[Bush92]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

I agree. The S.C. shooter should be an easy death penalty prosecution. The whole "hate crime" connotation is moot and the substance of these laws are unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

I agree. The S.C. shooter should be an easy death penalty prosecution. The whole "hate crime" connotation is moot and the substance of these laws are unconstitutional.

Lethal injection is too good for this bastard. Bring back hanging.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every crime is a "hate crime." You dont kill someone because you love him. There should be no distinction. If murder is wrong, it is wrong. The motives are not really an issue.
Similarly "domestic violence" is also wrong. If a man goes next door and beats up his neighbor's wife that isnt domestic violence. If he does the same to his own wife it is. That is totally wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Every crime is a "hate crime." You dont kill someone because you love him. There should be no distinction. If murder is wrong, it is wrong. The motives are not really an issue.
Similarly "domestic violence" is also wrong. If a man goes next door and beats up his neighbor's wife that isnt domestic violence. If he does the same to his own wife it is. That is totally wrong.

Making assault = assault would sure make Cops lives easier.
No qualifiers makes for less decisions on whether to cart the person off to jail.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every crime is a "hate crime." You dont kill someone because you love him. There should be no distinction. If murder is wrong, it is wrong. The motives are not really an issue.
Similarly "domestic violence" is also wrong. If a man goes next door and beats up his neighbor's wife that isnt domestic violence. If he does the same to his own wife it is. That is totally wrong.

Making assault = assault would sure make Cops lives easier.
No qualifiers makes for less decisions on whether to cart the person off to jail.

If it's wrong to do to your neighbor's wife, it's certainly wrong to do to your own wife. The whole category of "domestic violence" needs to go.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

Yes, but only because they were decided as such. I don't personally think they are. 1st Amendment guarantees your right to hate whoever you want, for whatever reason. But you're not allowed to then commit various crimes against those you hate and you'll be punished for it. But adding an extra federal charge would seem to violate the 1st Amendment part.

 

[Claudette]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

Hate crimes are nothing but bullshit.

Murder is murder and it doesn't make one fucking difference whether you hated those you killed or not.

Murder is murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

White man charged with knockout game hate crime. Racial hypocrisy - CSMonitor.com
Also an example of the law not being applied fairly.

Hate crimes were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. The case involved a BLACK ON WHITE CRIME.

 

[hazlnut]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

Your "opinion" doesn't matter.

You are not on SCOTUS.

They are Constitutional. Because SCOTUS said so.

Done.

And done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

White man charged with knockout game hate crime. Racial hypocrisy - CSMonitor.com
Also an example of the law not being applied fairly.

Hate crimes were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. The case involved a BLACK ON WHITE CRIME.

Correct, Wisconsin v. Mitchell - hate crime laws are in fact Constitutional.

 

[Bush92]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

Your "opinion" doesn't matter.

You are not on SCOTUS.

They are Constitutional. Because SCOTUS said so.

Done.

And done.

But that is not the end all of the federal law. Remember how the Supreme Court also ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson or in the Dred Scott case. They were wrong then and are about to gut Obamacare. The Court changes with time. The Wisconsin ruling was from 1993 and and the Court ruled that "states" can have extra punishment for so called hate crimes. Therefore it was a 10th Amendment issue.

 

[Bush92]

White man charged with knockout game hate crime. Racial hypocrisy - CSMonitor.com
Also an example of the law not being applied fairly.

Hate crimes were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. The case involved a BLACK ON WHITE CRIME.

Correct, Wisconsin v. Mitchell - hate crime laws are in fact Constitutional.

State's can set extra punishment for hate crimes.But what about federal law? District Court's have ruled that it is constitutional based on...of all things...the 13th Amendment. Kinda bizarre.

 

[Skylar]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

The Supreme Court already answered your question more than 20 years ago in Wisconsin v. Mitchel.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 U.S. 47 1993 .

Yes, Hate Crime legislation is constitutional.

 

[Skylar]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

Your "opinion" doesn't matter.

You are not on SCOTUS.

They are Constitutional. Because SCOTUS said so.

Done.

And done.

But that is not the end all of the federal law. Remember how the Supreme Court also ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson or in the Dred Scott case. They were wrong then and are about to gut Obamacare. The Court changes with time. The Wisconsin ruling was from 1993 and and the Court ruled that "states" can have extra punishment for so called hate crimes. Therefore it was a 10th Amendment issue.

It was a unanimous decision., including the votes of Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Hate crime legsilation is also supported by the court's left wing. So who is there to vote against it? Let alone over turn it?

Its unlikely its going to be overturned any time soon.

 

[American_Jihad]

H.Res.569 - Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.114th Congress (2015-2016)

...

Text - H.Res.569 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

...