VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:14:51 05/08/09 Fri
Author: pastor lewis
Subject: LAW OF THE LAND

LAW OF THE LAND
Congressman: 'Hate crimes' would 'break' Constitution
Criminalizing thought called 'unprecedented in federal law'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 08, 2009
12:35 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Janet Porter

The "hate crimes" plan pending in the Senate that has been dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act" would "break" the U.S. Constitution if adopted and enforced, according to an Arizona congressman.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was interviewed today on WND columnist Janet Porter's radio program for the Faith2Action Christian ministry.

"They have to necessarily break the Constitution for this bill to have any effect," Franks said.

The audio of his interview is embedded here:





WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President George W. Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived… sexual orientation, gender identity."

For only $10.95, any member of the public can send letters to all 100 senators, individually addressed and "signed" by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.

"While the bill's supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection. Indeed, if the bill's drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act," Akers wrote.

"On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God-given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality," he said.

Foremost, the bill simply ignores the 14th Amendment requirements that all citizens be protected equally, providing special protections for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyle choices, he said.

(Story continues below)




"The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by H.R. 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim's membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim. In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, H.R. 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed," he said.

"As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought," he said. "Under the H.R. 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive."

Franks told Porter he hopes there will be a filibuster in the U.S. Senate and that would leave time so "the American people can be educated as to what the effects of this bill will be."

He said such criminalization of thought is "unprecedented in federal law."


"Fundamentally, the whole purpose and essence of America is that we hold these truths to be self-evidence: that all of us are created equal," he said. "That sounds redundant but we probably should say it more; we seem to forget it so quickly."

He said the division of society into different groups of people will only foment hatred.

Matt Barber, also of Liberty Counsel, wrote in a commentary, "Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required 'equal protection of the laws;' it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government's authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution."

Find out how homosexuality as a "civil right" was sold to America, in the best-selling "Marketing of Evil."

"To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed 'hate crimes' victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.," he wrote. "This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard's memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being 'gay.' … The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary 'hate crimes' legislation," he said.

During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple:

The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
But majority Democrats refused to accept it.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what it means:

There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it's not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed opponents' fears, saying:

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"
President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.