Thread: Rare good news from the White House

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.

"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."

"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government," the office said.

"In addition, almost every state in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the state's own hate crimes law."

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, was quick to praise the statement.

"We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Barber in a statement.

Barber told Cybercast News Service Thursday that according to his sources in the White House, the president is inclined to follow his advisors' recommendations to veto the bill if passed.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also welcomed the undertaking.

"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law," he said in a statement. "The American justice system should never create second-class victims and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the House is debating the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592), which would "provide federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes" involving "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."

The bill was first introduced on March 20 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

He told the House Thursday that "there are no First Amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the First Amendment I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill."

Conyers said a vote for the bill would not be "a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It's a vote, rather, to provide basic rights and protections for individuals so they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation."

Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."

Opposing the measure, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would result in disproportionate justice for victims of certain crimes.

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system. Under this bill justice will no longer be equal but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim," he said.

"For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or a transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, members of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person."

Smith also voiced concern that the measure would have a "chilling effect" on religious leaders and groups "who express their constitutionally protected beliefs."

He also argued that it was unconstitutional and would likely be struck down by the courts.

'Other classes would be without special status'

According to the Executive Office release, "H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

"The administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status," the release said. "The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly."

Also, the bill "raises constitutional concerns" because "federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the federal government, such as the power to protect federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce or to enforce equal protection of the laws," the statement said.

Therefore, "it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592," the release added.

So do you think of BOOSh's approval rating was higher, he wouldn't have vetoed it?

That is good news Crocket. It has been on my mind for a while and I have emailed not only members of the senate and congress, but of course the White House.

We had something similar be pushed through the Oregon legislator. We voted a bit ago, measure 36, which was about same sex marriages. It passed, limiting marriage to man and a woman. Then the Oregon legislator went ahead and approved HB 2, which gives special rights and protections to those of "other" sexual orientations, the governor glibly signed the bill.

Many of our more wise and prudent legislators refused to vote, stating that the voters had already said no and that it was wrong for them to override the will of the voters.

I am glad to see that at least Pres. Bush has decided that special protections are not necessary and that we already have protections in place for people who are vicitms of hate crimes, instead of trying to punish people for un-provable "thought crimes".

Originally Posted by sippy

So do you think of BOOSh's approval rating was higher, he wouldn't have vetoed it?

Yes, I do, just as he would have vetoed the pullout date regardless of ratings. This was a piece of legislation that ran contrary to some of his core positions. I'll take my victories where I can get them.

does this mean I can keep my ham sandwiches and hot dogs... lol

The term "hate crime" never made much sense to me, usually people don't go out and kill somebody because they like them.

quote="MountainDog"]The term "hate crime" never made much sense to me, usually people don't go out and kill somebody because they like them.[/quote] Unless it was a crime of , I love you and O by the way now you must die

BUT YOUR RIGHT other then some stupid crime or law that’s way out dated there’s really no crime that doesn’t hate or is hate oriented.

Check these out

In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker's stand, you can be fined $25.
Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public

it a crime to place a bag of ham sandwiches on a table where a musulim is eating and them laugh about it.

.It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.(in ohio)

It is illegal to get a fish drunk.

The Ohio driver's education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.

Participating or conducting a duel is prohibited ( wonder why)

Breast feeding is not allowed in public

.It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.(Good thing we dont have two more daughters)

It is illegal to mistreat anything of great importance. (importent to who)


No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.(this isnt realy followed is it???)


and acorrding to todays laws you cant smoke in a bar,puplic place or if you have a home office in side your home or apartment building .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dictionary defines a hate crime as "any of various crimes... when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)." But the term doesn't always carry a commonly understood meaning.

crime motivated by hate for group: a crime that is motivated by hate, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation
World English Dictionary ©

(or intolerance )
So because my Childs class is all girls and I say something derogatory about that class or an all Girl class then I’ve just committed a hate crime ?Give me a break

BECAUSE SPEACH DOESNT MEAN CRIME that’s ABOUT WHAT HAPPEN IN THE HAME SANDWICH STORY



I can only at this point assume that the courts being persuaded by the Aclu and the likes ect…ect… have a big difference of opinion.

LOL, thanks Greg, maybe stupid laws would be a good subject on here.

Greg, you know in Western Oregon, it is illegal to pick a Trillium (which is a local flower)!!

They say the reason is that Trilliums are from a rhizome, and it takes seven years for a Trillium to basically be equally be replaced once it has been picked.

But truthfully, those of us who have/had little girls, think the police will come and handcuff them over one?

I cannot remember, right now, some of Oregons weird laws, but I know we have them. I'll have to look them up.

Originally Posted by MountainDog

The term "hate crime" never made much sense to me, usually people don't go out and kill somebody because they like them.

Yeah, aren't all crimes hate crimes? Since when do we say if a crime is committed against a member of one group of people the penalty is greater than if the same crime was committed against a member of another group of people?

So we're saying it's worse to commit a crime against the people in group A than it is to commit the same crime against people in group B. So the people in group A now are elevated in the eyes of the law above those in group B. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. What am I missing?