Bush plans to veto hate crimes bill

[krisy]

Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 03, 2007

(1st Add: Includes comments from Focus on the Family and Reps. John Conyers and Lamar Smith.)

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush looks likely to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by Congress. Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law."

"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President, and forwarded by Concerned Women for America.

"However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," the release stated. "If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The sentence containing the veto reference was underlined in the statement.

"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," the statement said.

In addition, "state and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively."


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070503d.html

more at link



:clap: :clap: :clap:

good for Bush.......a crime is a crime,one person isn't more special than another

[Hagbard Celine]

It has nothing to do with being more "special" than another. They were trying to get stiffer penalties for crimes committed on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc: i.e. hatecrimes. Most would agree that crimes of this nature are somehow more egregious and slightly more vile than a normal violent crime. Anyhow, I agree. It would've been a slippery slope opening that bag of worms. Every prosecutor would have been trying to get "hatecrime" status for every single crime that came down the pike.

The thing I find funny though is that the Bush administration said it would be "constitutionally questionable." What a riot that statement is. The Bush administration suddenly caring what is and isn't "constitutionally questionable" is about the same as a blind man being hired to judge a beauty contest. :laugh:

[darin]

The thing I find funny though is that the Bush administration said it would be "constitutionally questionable." What a riot that statement is. The Bush administration suddenly caring what is and isn't "constitutionally questionable" is about the same as a blind man being hired to judge a beauty contest. :laugh:

Uh - first off - you're seriously jacked up if you think GWB has violated the constitution.

Secondly, I'd LOVE to be a blind man judging a beauty contest...I'd have to 'read' the women like a braille book :)

[Hagbard Celine]

Uh - first off - you're seriously jacked up if you think GWB has violated the constitution.

Two words pal=Patriot Act. Uh warrantless wiretaps. Rendition. Have you been asleep for the past seven years?

[stephanie]

SNIP:

House Passes Expanded Hate Crimes Bill
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, May 3, 2007

(05-03) 11:00 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Full article...http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/03/national/w105804D83.DTL
Just hours after the White House issued a veto threat Thursday, the House voted to add gender and sexual orientation to the categories covered by federal hate crimes law.


The House legislation, passed 237-180, also makes it easier for federal law enforcement to take part in or assist local prosecutions involving bias-motivated attacks. Similar legislation is also moving through the Senate, setting the stage for another veto showdown with President Bush.

H R 1592 YEA-AND-NAY 3-May-2007 1:46 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes.


Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 212 14 6
Republican 25 166 10
Independent
TOTALS 237 180 16

[darin]

Two words pal. Patriot Act.

5 more words.

...does not violate the constitution.

[Hagbard Celine]

5 more words.

...does not violate the constitution.

Then why the mysterious controversy and fight between the WH and Congress over certain parts of it when it came time to renew it? Were they arguing over the renew date dmp?

[darin]

Then why the mysterious controversy and fight between the WH and Congress over certain parts of it when it came time to renew it? Were they arguing over the renew date dmp?

You're saying Federal Prosecutors and Judges don't realize it's Unconstitutional? You mean YOU and a few other screaming libs have MORE insight into Constitutional Law than the SUPREME COURT? Wow.

[krisy]

It has nothing to do with being more "special" than another. They were trying to get stiffer penalties for crimes committed on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc: i.e. hatecrimes. Most would agree that crimes of this nature are somehow more egregious and slightly more vile than a normal violent crime. Anyhow, I agree. It would've been a slippery slope opening that bag of worms. Every prosecutor would have been trying to get "hatecrime" status for every single crime that came down the pike.

The thing I find funny though is that the Bush administration said it would be "constitutionally questionable." What a riot that statement is. The Bush administration suddenly caring what is and isn't "constitutionally questionable" is about the same as a blind man being hired to judge a beauty contest. :laugh:


Glad you agree. But IMO it is essentially making one person more special than another. IS a crime commited against a person ever a good thing? Aren't all crimes "hate" crimes ,basically because if you are hurting someone,you certainly must not being feeling love. Who is it for anyone to decide that because a black man is jumped and beaten because he is black,it is worse or somehow more vile than if he jumps and beats me to steal my purse? Would someone be charged with a hate crime if I cried "i"m a white woman and that's why he did it?"

Seems like it would be awful difficult for prosecutors to prove some hate crimes anyway. How can you determine exactly what is going through someon's head at the time of a crime.

[Hagbard Celine]

You're saying Federal Prosecutors and Judges don't realize it's Unconstitutional? You mean YOU and a few other screaming libs have MORE insight into Constitutional Law than the SUPREME COURT? Wow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

You're a genius.

[darin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

You're a genius.

So - THREE YEARS AGO, ONE PART of the act was ruled Unconstitutional and that means 'The Act' violates the constitution?

I'm very thankful Libs are becoming an endangered species. It's GOOD for society. :)

[Hagbard Celine]

So - THREE YEARS AGO, ONE PART of the act was ruled Unconstitutional and that means 'The Act' violates the constitution?

I'm very thankful Libs are becoming an endangered species. It's GOOD for society. :)


Then why the mysterious controversy and fight between the WH and Congress over certain parts of it when it came time to renew it? Were they arguing over the renew date dmp?

Please read my posts before commenting on them.

[darin]

Please read my posts before commenting on them.

I'm reading where you claimed "The Patriot Act" Violates the constitution. That part. The part you cannot weasel out-of. Your words.


The Patriot Act had one or some elements changed. I'm not debating that. I'm debating your bullshit claims about your President willfully violating, or ignorantly-violating the constitution.

[Hobbit]

Two words pal=Patriot Act. Uh warrantless wiretaps. Rendition. Have you been asleep for the past seven years?

I was going to say McCain-Feingold. I think you'd get farther holding that up as Bush violating the Constitution.

As far as hate crimes, I really don't think we need to punish anything based on motive. At that point, we're criminalizing thoughts and intentions. While those thoughts and intentions play a serious role in determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect, I don't think they need to come with additional penalties.

For example, I get REALLY pissed off one night, suffer a nervous breakdown, and decide to go cap some poor soul. Is it a greater crime to go looking for, say, a black guy than it is just to shoot the first shmuck I run across? Now, if I had a history of racism and often spouted off about wanting to kill black guys, I could see that as being evidence pointing towards my guilt, but I don't think it should get 5 years tacked on.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm reading where you claimed "The Patriot Act" Violates the constitution. That part. The part you cannot weasel out-of. Your words.


The Patriot Act had one or some elements changed. I'm not debating that. I'm debating your bullshit claims about your President willfully violating, or ignorantly-violating the constitution.

It did violate the constitution. I posted a link to a washington post article about it genius.

[darin]

It did violate the constitution. I posted a link to a washington post article about it genius.

'did'. One part of the entire act. idiocy.

[Hagbard Celine]

'did'. One part of the entire act. idiocy.

That's what I said in my second post. AFTER you asked for specifics. My first post said: "Two words: Patriot Act." You don't have me here. You're wrong. You're a grown man arguing semantics at me. I proved that the patriot act was unconstitutional. I posted a news article announcing it. Move on man.

[darin]

That's what I said in my second post. AFTER you asked for specifics. My first post said: "Two words: Patriot Act." You don't have me here. You're wrong. You're a grown man arguing semantics at me. I proved that the patriot act was unconstitutional. I posted a news article announcing it. Move on man.

But you're a LIAR.

me: GWB doesn't violate the constitution.

you: (he did with the patriot act ) Paraphrased.

me: Dude, the Patriot Act doesn't violate the Constitution.

You: Here's a Three year old Article showing how ONE PART of the act needed to be fixed/changed/altered or whatever.

me: How does that make the entire act a violation of the constitution.

Here's your modus operandi: You make OUTLANDISH claims and when called to justify your claims you come up with bullshit, then use dismissive words like "I proved it" when you've proven NOTHING but your own inadequacy as a rational, reasonable person.

Hag - MEAN what you say, and SAY what you mean. If you MEANT "In 2003 part of the act was ruled by a judge to be unconstitutional" Do NOT say "The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional" because the latter is UNTRUE. When Called-out on one of your tirades of lies and half-truths have enough SACK to clarify your original comments, or apologize for being incompetent and leave the discussion.

(shrug).

[Hagbard Celine]

But you're a LIAR.

me: GWB doesn't violate the constitution.

you: (he did with the patriot act ) Paraphrased.

me: Dude, the Patriot Act doesn't violate the Constitution.

You: Here's a Three year old Article showing how ONE PART of the act needed to be fixed/changed/altered or whatever.

me: How does that make the entire act a violation of the constitution.

Here's your modus operandi: You make OUTLANDISH claims and when called to justify your claims you come up with bullshit, then use dismissive words like "I proved it" when you've proven NOTHING but your own inadequacy as a rational, reasonable person.

Hag - MEAN what you say, and SAY what you mean. If you MEANT "In 2003 part of the act was ruled by a judge to be unconstitutional" Do NOT say "The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional" because the latter is UNTRUE. When Called-out on one of your tirades of lies and half-truths have enough SACK to clarify your original comments, or apologize for being incompetent and leave the discussion.

(shrug).

I didn't say "the patriot act is unconstitutional." I said "two words pal: patriot act." Even if I had said what you think I said I'd still be right because I backed up what I said with a news article saying the patriot act was unconstitutional. I think the headline was "Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional." What more do you want? You're like a little whiny girl "waaah, I got proven wrong so I'm going to be a brat and attack hagbard personally." What a joke. :rolleyes: And you're a mod too. That makes it all the more funny. This whole website is a waste of time. Everything ends up degenerating into a you said, I said pixie fight over semantics. Goodbye.

[darin]

I didn't say "the patriot act is unconstitutional." I said "two words pal: patriot act." Even if I had said what you think I said I'd still be right because I backed up what I said with a news article saying the patriot act was unconstitutional. I think the headline was "Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional." What more do you want? You're like a little whiny girl "waaah, I got proven wrong so I'm going to be a brat and attack hagbard personally." What a joke. :rolleyes: And you're a mod too. That makes it all the more funny. This whole website is a waste of time. Everything ends up degenerating into a you said, I said pixie fight over semantics. Goodbye.

What you said was "GWB Violated the Constitution with the Patriot Act".

Stop backpedaling...stop trying to dance around the fact you're an extremist who tries to use Extreme words and language to generate support for your beliefs, but when CALLED on the language you try to :dance: :dance: :dance: your way out of it.

This last reply of yours is simply Hagbard getting his feewings hurt when somebody stands up to his :bs:. You dish out SO MUCH crap on this board - you flame and make snide remarks, and left-handed compliments - but when I call you on your BS you degenerate into a 'victim' mentality.

[Yurt]

Two words pal=Patriot Act. Uh warrantless wiretaps. Rendition. Have you been asleep for the past seven years?

And yet the ol' dictator allowed these issues through the constitutional courts...........

next.....

[loosecannon]

It did violate the constitution

So do the 500+ signing statements that the pres signed so far, the eavesdropping without warrants, the President declaring war regardless of whether Congress signed a bill allowing him to do so.

The entire unitary executive principle is unconstitutional.

[Yurt]

And yet the ol' dictator allowed these issues through the constitutional courts...........

next.....

By allowing debate about it and the courts/legislature in on it, it is not unconstitutional. To say otherwise is to ignore our country's founding and the case law from the 1800's.


Edit:

by that I mean, the prez will accept if it "is" unconstitutional. your argument essentially is that he ingores the constitution. which is false.