Religions > Atheism > AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
05 May 2007 10:05:21 PM |
| Object: |
AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/afa_president_says_hate_crimes.php
The president of the American Family Association (AFA) says concerned
Christians must contact the White House and encourage President George
W. Bush to veto the hate crimes bill passed today by Congress.
By a vote of 237-180, the House of Representatives approved HR 1592
(the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) on
Thursday. (Click here to see how your representative voted.)
Supporters say the law is needed to prevent attacks on homosexuals.
But pro-family groups point out that laws already address assaults on
people and property, and that HR 1592 gives homosexuals and cross
dressers preferential treatment by elevating them to a specially
protected class.
They also argue that under the law, pastors who preach sermons
outlining the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted --
and that Christian businessmen who refuse to manufacture pro-
homosexual literature could be prosecuted.
AFA president Tim Wildmon contends the bill jeopardizes the First
Amendment rights of Christians.
"Let's suppose a pastor gives a message where he's teaching that
homosexuality is a sin -- as the Bible teaches," says Wildmon. "And
let's suppose someone who is affiliated with that church is arrested
for a crime, and the person they commit the crime against supposedly
is a homosexual. Is that going to come back to the church? Is the
church going to be held responsible for 'inciting' the violence
against the person?"
The bill now heads to the Senate, where Senator Ted Kennedy (D-
Massachusetts) has sponsored similar legislation.
Earlier today the Executive Office of the President, in anticipation
of the pending House vote, released a "statement of administration
policy" indicating that President Bush's senior advisors would
recommend he veto the measure should it reach his desk. The statement
describes HR 1592 as "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."
.
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
05 May 2007 10:33:54 PM |
|
|
In News 1178420721.626507.319520@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,, J Young at
youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/afa_president_says_hate_crimes.php
The president of the American Family Association (AFA) says concerned
Christians must contact the White House and encourage President George
W. Bush to veto the hate crimes bill passed today by Congress.
By a vote of 237-180, the House of Representatives approved HR 1592
(the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) on
Thursday. (Click here to see how your representative voted.)
Supporters say the law is needed to prevent attacks on homosexuals.
But pro-family groups point out that laws already address assaults on
people and property, and that HR 1592 gives homosexuals and cross
dressers preferential treatment by elevating them to a specially
protected class.
Nonsense, HR 1592 protects everyone with a sexuality, including
heterosexuals. It give no preference to homosexuals or cross dressers.
Had you actually read the bill, you would know that already.
.."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
06 May 2007 01:46:43 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1178420721.626507.319520@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,, J Young at
youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/afa_president_says_hate_crimes.php
The president of the American Family Association (AFA) says concerned
Christians must contact the White House and encourage President George
W. Bush to veto the hate crimes bill passed today by Congress.
By a vote of 237-180, the House of Representatives approved HR 1592
(the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) on
Thursday. (Click here to see how your representative voted.)
Supporters say the law is needed to prevent attacks on homosexuals.
But pro-family groups point out that laws already address assaults on
people and property, and that HR 1592 gives homosexuals and cross
dressers preferential treatment by elevating them to a specially
protected class.
Nonsense, HR 1592 protects everyone with a sexuality, including
heterosexuals. It give no preference to homosexuals or cross dressers.
Had you actually read the bill, you would know that already.
Well, that applies to Young, but not to the AFA spokesman, who knows ful
well what the bill says but chooses to lie about it anyway
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 03:45:07 PM |
|
|
In News nop%h.2793$Wf.106@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net,, Ash at
ash.amanic@virgin.net, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1178420721.626507.319520@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,, J
Young at youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/afa_president_says_hate_crimes.php
The president of the American Family Association (AFA) says
concerned Christians must contact the White House and encourage
President George W. Bush to veto the hate crimes bill passed today
by Congress. By a vote of 237-180, the House of Representatives approved
HR 1592
(the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) on
Thursday. (Click here to see how your representative voted.)
Supporters say the law is needed to prevent attacks on homosexuals.
But pro-family groups point out that laws already address assaults
on people and property, and that HR 1592 gives homosexuals and cross
dressers preferential treatment by elevating them to a specially
protected class.
Nonsense, HR 1592 protects everyone with a sexuality, including
heterosexuals. It give no preference to homosexuals or cross
dressers. Had you actually read the bill, you would know that
already.
Well, that applies to Young, but not to the AFA spokesman, who knows
ful well what the bill says but chooses to lie about it anyway
True.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
05 May 2007 11:31:08 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
Start with your rabid opposition to religious freedom.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
07 May 2007 12:06:55 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
Then we agree that everybody should be free to ignore the dictates of
your corrupt church.
Welcome to the pro-choice side.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
05 May 2007 10:57:49 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
Violence or threats of violence are not protected by the 1st
Amendment, dickface.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
05 May 2007 10:13:36 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
Oddly enough, you weren't all that worried about the FA
when Bush was approving limitations on it, were you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
06 May 2007 11:27:38 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
Does that include George Bush who has steadily eroded first amendment
rights? or just people you don't like?
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Carrigaholt" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
05 May 2007 10:24:15 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
The AFA is lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
05 May 2007 11:22:15 PM |
|
|
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws define as
a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing excessive
punishments based on sexual orientation.
I am sure that some people think that anyone who commits a violation against
anyone based upon their sexual orientation, whether straight or gay or
lesbian or even celibate, should be fined and/or imprisoned in excess of the
already existing laws that punish persons who attack any person regardless
of the sexual orientation aspect.
The already corrupt anti-liberty agenda of the incarceration for dollars
agenda is harming our nation, robbing it of skill and talent and money.
The AFA is lying.
Where is your proof?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Carrigaholt" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
05 May 2007 11:45:16 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" wrote:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws define as
a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing excessive
punishments based on sexual orientation.
Crimes based upon bigortry induced hatred and rage ought to carry heavier
penalties---they are more reprehensible and more dangerous to society.
The AFA is lying.
Where is your proof?
In the body of the bill. Read it.
--
Caillean, Lady Carrigaholt
"We are of that generation that so transformed the world that future days and
nights can never be the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 09:32:12 AM |
|
|
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments based
on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Why have you not complained about those?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 05:08:05 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments
based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Enhanced punishments are unconstitutional.
Why have you not complained about those?
I wasn't fully aware of enhanced punishments on the basis of race or
religion.
But, thank you for informing me of that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 06:52:33 PM |
|
|
In News gns%h.32528$qB4.9352@bignews3.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky
at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose
excessive punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what
other laws define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would
be imposing excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased
punishments based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race,
and religion.
Enhanced punishments are unconstitutional.
Then file your case. What are you waiting for?
Why have you not complained about those?
I wasn't fully aware of enhanced punishments on the basis of race or
religion.
But, thank you for informing me of that.
You don't seem to be fully aware of much of anything. Again I ask, why
haven't you complained about those? My bet is that you're too much of a
chicken ***** to answer the question honestly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 05:25:52 PM |
|
|
In our last episode, <gns%h.32528$qB4.9352@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the
lovely and talented John D. Wentzky broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
Where?
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments
based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Enhanced punishments are unconstitutional.
Untrue.
Why have you not complained about those?
I wasn't fully aware of enhanced punishments on the basis of race or
religion.
But, thank you for informing me of that.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 624 days to go.
==============================
Boycott the melamine Olympics!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 05:44:33 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf3sln3.1mtv.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com...
In our last episode, <gns%h.32528$qB4.9352@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the
lovely and talented John D. Wentzky broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
Where?
Enhanced, meaning, increased or intensified, extra, augmented, additional is
excessive when the enhanced punishment is added to the punishment that is
already dictated by another law addressing the same act.
The concept of double jeopardy itself, extended to the practice of law,
forbids placing enhanced punishments on any peson because of any crime that
is already covered by another law.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments
based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Enhanced punishments are unconstitutional.
Untrue.
Nah.
It is easily determined that enhanced punishments are excessive punishments
by the Constitution's wording.
Why have you not complained about those?
I wasn't fully aware of enhanced punishments on the basis of race or
religion.
But, thank you for informing me of that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 07:00:24 PM |
|
|
In News sVs%h.32542$qB4.6877@bignews3.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf3sln3.1mtv.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com...
In our last episode, <gns%h.32528$qB4.9352@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented John D. Wentzky broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D.
Wentzky at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose
excessive punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what
other laws define as a crime would be unconstituional as they
would be imposing excessive punishments based on sexual
orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based
on criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
Where?
Enhanced, meaning, increased or intensified, extra, augmented,
additional is excessive when the enhanced punishment is added to the
punishment that is already dictated by another law addressing the
same act. The concept of double jeopardy itself, extended to the practice
of
law, forbids placing enhanced punishments on any peson because of any
crime that is already covered by another law.
Horsecrap. The concept of double jeopardy extends to, and ONLY to being
tried more than once for the same crime. The Constitution is silent on the
issue of the degree to which any crime can be punished except that
punishment cannot be cruel, or unusual in nature.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 05:55:26 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<sVs%h.32542$qB4.6877@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented John D. Wentzky
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf3sln3.1mtv.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com...
In our last episode, <gns%h.32528$qB4.9352@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the
lovely and talented John D. Wentzky broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
Where?
Enhanced, meaning, increased or intensified, extra, augmented, additional is
excessive when the enhanced punishment is added to the punishment that is
already dictated by another law addressing the same act.
That is nonsense. By that logic it would impossible to charge first degree
murder because it is only manslaughter enhanced by intent.
The concept of double jeopardy itself, extended to the practice of law,
forbids placing enhanced punishments on any peson because of any crime that
is already covered by another law.
Again, homicide is covered by manslaughter, so your logic would make a law
against murder unconstitutional.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments
based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Enhanced punishments are unconstitutional.
Untrue.
Nah.
Sorry, you don't get to say. The Supreme Court has upheld hate crimes
legislation.
It is easily determined that enhanced punishments are excessive punishments
by the Constitution's wording.
Nine legal scholars whose votes count disagree with your absurd assertion.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 624 days to go.
==============================
Boycott the melamine Olympics!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 08:55:43 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 3:44 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Enhanced, meaning, increased or intensified, extra, augmented, additional is
excessive when the enhanced punishment is added to the punishment that is
already dictated by another law addressing the same act.
The concept of double jeopardy itself, extended to the practice of law,
forbids placing enhanced punishments on any peson because of any crime that
is already covered by another law.
This is an absolutely false statement which has nothing to do with the
defintion of "double jeopary" under law.
Nah.
It is easily determined that enhanced punishments are excessive punishments
by the Constitution's wording.
Easily determined by you, maybe. Not by every single one of the
hundreds of judges who has ever had to deal with these laws. Who
should we believe, I wonder?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
07 May 2007 06:14:45 AM |
|
|
Anlatt the Builder wrote:
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Enhanced, meaning, increased or intensified, extra, augmented, additional is
excessive when the enhanced punishment is added to the punishment that is
already dictated by another law addressing the same act.
The concept of double jeopardy itself, extended to the practice of law,
forbids placing enhanced punishments on any peson because of any crime that
is already covered by another law.
This is an absolutely false statement which has nothing to do with the
defintion of "double jeopary" under law.
I think what we're seeing is Wentzky's strategy to whittle down his sentence to jay walking.
Almost make ya wish you were part of the potential jury pool.
Almost.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Eschew obfuscation
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
06 May 2007 07:33:50 PM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
Except that punishments are not "enhanced". They are increased because
the crime isn't just against the person.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments
based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Enhanced punishments are unconstitutional.
See above.
Why have you not complained about those?
I wasn't fully aware of enhanced punishments on the basis of race or
religion.
But, thank you for informing me of that.
You're welcome. Burning a board on a lawn is not illegal. Burning a
cross on a black person's lawn is.
--
*******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* Christianity: A belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie *
* who was his own father will let you live forever *
* if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, *
* and telepathically tell him that you accept him as *
* your master, so he can remove an evil force from *
* your soul that he put there a long time ago as pun- *
* ishment for all humanity because a rib-woman made *
* from a dust-man was convinced by a talking snake *
* to eat fruit from a magical tree. *
*******************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 05:31:20 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 3:08 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAI...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <L...@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
We have, in this country, enhanced punishments based on the age of the
victim (crimes against children), the occupation of the victim (crimes
against the police), as well enhanced punishment based on the intent
of the attacker (the difference between murder and manslaughter is, in
many cases, intent). What in the world leads you to believe that ANY
of this is unconsititutional?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 05:48:34 PM |
|
|
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178490680.897346.149210@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 3:08 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAI...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <L...@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
We have, in this country, enhanced punishments based on the age of the
victim (crimes against children),
I wonder why when Civil rights law disallows discrimination on the basis of
age?
the occupation of the victim (crimes against the police),
Why would anyone be such a hypocrite and treat one group of adults
differently than another group adults?
To take care of the people you must learn to be one of the people instead of
an overlording hypocrite.
Unequal protections and unequal privileges are forbidden by the
Constitution.
as well enhanced punishment based on the intent
of the attacker (the difference between murder and manslaughter is, in
many cases, intent).
Where is the terminology 'enhanced punishments' used in those laws?
What in the world leads you to believe that ANY
of this is unconsititutional?
The Constitution and Civil Rights law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 07:06:27 PM |
|
|
In News cZs%h.32544$qB4.3369@bignews3.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Anlatt the Builder" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178490680.897346.149210@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 3:08 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAI...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:MFl%h.12202$3P3.1019@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D.
Wentzky at johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <L...@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose
excessive punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what
other laws define as a crime would be unconstituional as they
would be imposing excessive punishments based on sexual
orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based
on criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
Enhanced punishments are forbidden by the Constitution.
We have, in this country, enhanced punishments based on the age of
the victim (crimes against children),
I wonder why when Civil rights law disallows discrimination on the
basis of age?
Who says that it is discrimination?
the occupation of the victim (crimes against the police),
Why would anyone be such a hypocrite and treat one group of adults
differently than another group adults?
Who says that they are being treated different? Anyone that kills a LEO is
treated just the same. The logic, such that it may or may not be, is that
someone that is rabid enough to go after a cop will kill anyone, and is a
greater threat to society at large.
To take care of the people you must learn to be one of the people
instead of an overlording hypocrite.
Unequal protections and unequal privileges are forbidden by the
Constitution.
The question is, why are you suddenly speaking out against hate crimes
against homosexuals when the condition of "inequality" has existed for over
two centuries in this country?
as well enhanced punishment based on the intent
of the attacker (the difference between murder and manslaughter is,
in many cases, intent).
Where is the terminology 'enhanced punishments' used in those laws?
There doesn't need to be such terminology to see the reality of it in
practice. It is a well known fact that manslaughter carries far harsher
penalties than does negligent homocide, as does second degree murder does
over negligent homocide, as does first degree murder does over second degree
murder.
What in the world leads you to believe that ANY
of this is unconsititutional?
The Constitution and Civil Rights law.
Of which you have little knowledge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
06 May 2007 01:50:24 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws
define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing
excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased punishments based
on criminal behavior steming from issues of race, and religion.
Why have you not complained about those?
The fact that it is only the sexual orientation part that these people
are objecting to makes it somewhat difficult to believe they have any
real problem with Hate crime legislation, just the idea that it is not
ok to attack gays
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 03:45:55 PM |
|
|
In News Qrp%h.2797$Wf.1780@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net,, Ash at
ash.amanic@virgin.net, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1Mc%h.8676$F11.3196@bignews1.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky
at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment
rights of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe
upon free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose
excessive punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what
other laws define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would
be imposing excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Wrong. This hate crime bill imposes increased punishments based on
criminal behavior steming from issues of sexual orientation.
There are already such laws in place that impose increased
punishments based on criminal behavior steming from issues of race,
and religion. Why have you not complained about those?
The fact that it is only the sexual orientation part that these people
are objecting to makes it somewhat difficult to believe they have any
real problem with Hate crime legislation, just the idea that it is not
ok to attack gays
Exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
06 May 2007 01:30:04 AM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws define as
a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing excessive
punishments based on sexual orientation.
Not really. A "hate crime" is not just a crime against that one person;
it is a crime against the entire group. Indeed, a "hate crime" could be
said to be synonymous with a terrorist attack; the point of the attack
being to induce terror into the group.
I am sure that some people think that anyone who commits a violation against
anyone based upon their sexual orientation, whether straight or gay or
lesbian or even celibate, should be fined and/or imprisoned in excess of the
already existing laws that punish persons who attack any person regardless
of the sexual orientation aspect.
But, if the crime is done against the person because they're the member
of the group, then that crime extends beyond the single crime against
the person to the crime of terrorism against the group.
Unless, of course, you're pro-terrorism.
--
*******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* Christianity: A belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie *
* who was his own father will let you live forever *
* if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, *
* and telepathically tell him that you accept him as *
* your master, so he can remove an evil force from *
* your soul that he put there a long time ago as pun- *
* ishment for all humanity because a rib-woman made *
* from a dust-man was convinced by a talking snake *
* to eat fruit from a magical tree. *
*******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
06 May 2007 01:25:20 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose
excessive punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what
other laws define as a crime would be unconstituional as they would
be imposing excessive punishments based on sexual orientation.
Not really. A "hate crime" is not just a crime against that one
person; it is a crime against the entire group. Indeed, a "hate
crime" could be said to be synonymous with a terrorist attack; the
point of the attack being to induce terror into the group.
I am sure that some people think that anyone who commits a violation
against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, whether straight
or gay or lesbian or even celibate, should be fined and/or
imprisoned in excess of the already existing laws that punish
persons who attack any person regardless of the sexual orientation
aspect.
But, if the crime is done against the person because they're the
member of the group, then that crime extends beyond the single crime
against the person to the crime of terrorism against the group.
Unless, of course, you're pro-terrorism.
The fact that a hate crime affects many more people is one reason
for an enhanced punishment. Another is that the perpertrators can
be harder to catch because there may be no physical evidence
(stolen goods) and no relationship of any kind with the victim.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendmentrights |
06 May 2007 01:48:50 PM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie> wrote in message
news:463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie...
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
Even then, any law that uses 'hate crime' language to impose excessive
punishments upon persons who did nothing more than what other laws define as
a crime would be unconstituional as they would be imposing excessive
punishments based on sexual orientation.
I am sure that some people think that anyone who commits a violation against
anyone based upon their sexual orientation, whether straight or gay or
lesbian or even celibate, should be fined and/or imprisoned in excess of the
already existing laws that punish persons who attack any person regardless
of the sexual orientation aspect.
The already corrupt anti-liberty agenda of the incarceration for dollars
agenda is harming our nation, robbing it of skill and talent and money.
The AFA is lying.
Where is your proof?
That would be the actual text of the bill that they are lying about
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: AFA president says hate crimes bill could endanger First Amendment rights |
05 May 2007 10:35:08 PM |
|
|
In News 463D49F9.79B2EA71@TelecomEirann.ie,, Lady Carrigaholt at
LadyC@TelecomEirann.ie, typed this:
J Young wrote:
Anything that could possibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights
of our citizenry shouuld be denied.
It is a lie.
The bill specifically says in the body that it is not to infringe upon
free speech and only deals with physical violence.
The AFA is lying.
Per usual.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
