Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for hate crime and terrorism charges against James Fields and possibly others. The response is understandable, but the expansion of these laws raise serious free speech concerns that should be considered before prosecutors move beyond the current murder charge.
In a rare moment of unity in our country, leaders of both major parties joined in their call for investigations and prosecutions following the deadly protests in Charlottesville, Va. Officials have called for hate crime and terrorism charges against James Alex Fields Jr., 20, who is accused of mowing down counter-demonstrators and killing Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal.
It was a sickening act that came after a day of violence near the statue of Robert E. Lee. Fields is already charged with murder in Virginia, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions moved quickly to open an investigation for possible hate crime charges on the federal level. Such a charge could rekindle concerns over the expansion of both hate crime and terrorism laws, particularly in conflict with free speech principles.
Hate crime laws
The first challenge for a hate crime prosecution will be to determine if this was an act of specific hate from general rage. The hate crimes statute covers an attack that was motivated not by unfettered fury but particularized hatred of a victim’s race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Fields may indeed have targeted people on that basis, but there would be serious questions over the applicability of the statute. There is no indication that he waited for particular people to enter the street, but mowed down everyone in his path.
While Fields is reportedly an admirer of Adolph Hitler and some of his victims were black, Heyer was white and the crowd was a mix of races and genders and religions. The Justice Department could argue that Heyer was killed in an act targeting blacks, but it will have to show that Fields was attacking counter-demonstrators generally. This is the long-standing objection of civil libertarians that hate crimes tend to be dangerously fluid and subjective — as opposed to the more concrete murder charges.
There is a more general provision under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Section 245 of Title 18 that makes it a federal crime to use force to willfully injure or intimidate any citizen “participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly” directed at opposing the denial of civil rights to other people. That provision, however, is more often directed at acts like the denial of voting rights. It has not been applied to a case like this.
There was violence on both sides of this demonstration with people showing up with shields, clubs and other weapons. Fields certainly seems to easily fulfill the hate aspect of a hate crime, but his prosecution could raise the question of whom or what he hated so much as to cause him to speed down a crowded street in Charlottesville.
Terrorism laws
National security adviser H.R. McMaster took the calls for prosecution into a different direction on ABC’s “This Week” and insisted that “anytime that you commit an attack against people to incite fear, it is terrorism.” As with the statement of Attorney General Sessions, the strong language from McMaster was commendable in assuring Americans that we will not stand for such acts of savagery in this nation. However, McMaster’s call to “extinguish” acts of hatred through terrorism laws triggers a predictable response for those of us in the civil liberties community.
While Fields cannot be charged with domestic terrorism under these facts, people, including CNN legal analyst Page Pate, have called for the expansion of the law. Lisa Monaco, President Obama’s homeland security adviser, echoed McMaster’s sentiments and said that “kind of violence, committed for seeming political ends, is the very definition of domestic terrorism.” The question again will be Fields’s “seeming political ends” in plowing his car into a crowd of people on a street.
Civil libertarians have objected for years over the expansion of terrorism laws after 9/11. Under the USA Patriot Act, a violation of federal or state criminal law qualifies as “domestic terrorism” if it is intended to coerce or intimidate a civilian population or to coerce the policy of the government. As with the hate crime provision, there are obvious concerns about the use of such a law in the context of a political demonstration.
The First Amendment sees no distinction based on viewpoints. They are all protesters and cloaked in the same constitutional protections — and subject to the same criminal laws for violence. Indeed, the demonstrators had recently succeeded in going to court to enjoin the denial of free speech by the Charlottesville City Council in refusing them a permit.
There are calls for the demonstration by white supremacists and nationalists to be investigated as part of the terroristic act (or under the Ku Klux Act). That raises the specter that violence by demonstrators would be subject to terrorism investigations more readily than the violence of counter-demonstrators. For example, the racist organizer of this event was assaulted the following day when trying to speak to the media. Was this terrorism by a person acting with “seeming political ends”?
Obviously, this is not the time when it is popular to raise such concerns. At a time of national rage, such constitutional concerns can appear precious or even disloyal. However, we have much to lose if we allow crimes like terrorism to expand dramatically into areas of unpopular but protected speech. What Fields allegedly did was not speech, it was murder. As we legitimately investigate a possible hate crime, we need to be careful not to lose that distinction.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him o
Reading the comments from JT’s “base” reminds me of the old saying that you should never argue with a drunk or a willfully ignorant idiot. But after reading comments from Trump supporters I feel I have walked into a bar full of them on barstools.
…or “wrestle with a pig” — as that other saying goes. Thanks for the laugh, Fishwings. 🙂
I didn’t want that “smiley face” there, but sometimes WP seems to have a mind of its own.
“Racism is evil.” – President Donald J. Trump
Abolish racist “Affirmative Action Privilege.”
There is an old law that deals with conspiracy against rights, and could impose a death sentence in this case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
An HBO video 22 minutes. Charlottesville. How it began & ended. Witnesses say that James Fields was being attacked before he used his car as a weapon. There may be video of that attack.
Hotsy totsy you defend Nazis.
A racism advisor to Obama, who goes by the name of Rev. Al Sharpton gets air time.
KKK hearin the whistles.
Ken,
This KKK Cantwell guy needs a babysitter tonight. Won’t you help out? Bring a 6-pack of Bud.
The Constitution provides freedom of thought, speech, religion, assembly, press and every other conceivable natural and god-given freedom per the 9th Amendment.
The commenter is defending the Constitution.
The implication of your comment is that you want to forcibly impose the dictatorship of the Communist Manifesto.
That is treason.
I heard on t.v. that the driver was being pelted with rocks and hit the gas pedal to get away, but I still don’t see why he had to drive into the crowd at top speed. He could have leaned on his horn and slowly driven through. Even if people struck his car, he was still inside and protected. Anyway, if there is more film to explain what actually happened, it will be interesting to watch,
“However, we have much to lose if we allow crimes like terrorism to expand dramatically into areas of unpopular but protected speech. What Fields allegedly did was not speech, it was murder.”
Too many only want to censor “the other side”. That leads to inequity in the law and leads to what apparently happened to a tweet by a NY Times correspondent Sheryl Gray who reportedly tweeted the following. My understanding is that she had to apologize for that tweet in essence to blame only members of the Nazi et al group. The original tweet was:
“2. The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw
club-wielding “antifa” beating white nationalists being led out of the
park 2/2″
The correction apparently appologizes. Why should she apologize for reporting what she saw.
Out of curiosity, if ISIS got a permit to march in a major city, would those here support their rights? One could make the case we’re at war with ISIS. Why aren’t we at war with the KLAN or Neo-Nazis? This is one of those moments where everyone has to take a side. What do you stand for?
Also, Turley managed to write about Charlottesville without mentioning Trump. Real brave!
Karl Denninger mentioned Trump. Here is an excerpt:
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
A simple yes would have done. I was only wondering about consistency. BTW, Trump did a lot more than stand against violence. He praised the “nice people” who chanted Nazi songs and condemned Jews and blacks. They stood among those clad in Nazi regalia and Klan robes. They lent their support to racism and hate. Nice people? Not so much! Regarding the Klan or Nazis, you’re either with them or against them.
Do you think Denniger is right or wrong in what he said?
Are you with Antifa, or are you against them?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No group should be met with violence. I don’t think every group should be allowed to speak everywhere. If legitimate safety concerns exist. Maybe they don’t get to speak on a college campus or a public space that can’t be adequately protected. We have no problem setting up speech zones at Super Bowls, away from the Supreme Court Building, near the White House for example. The groups may have a right to speak but not to provide danger to others or generate an unreasonable cost if it can’t be passed along.
I don’t know much about Antifa, from what I’ve read they are against fascists which I agree with but also have some members who engage in violence which I don’t. I don’t know whether the organization advocates violence or not,
enigma – Antifa is like the KKK and the Nazis, you are either for them or against them. You can’t be slightly pregnant with Antifa. 😉
Hear, hear!
A little bit pregnant.
I may come to agree with you. I never heard of them until the other day. I suspect the Antifa death toll doesn’t match either of those organizations. #NotThe Same. Doesn’t mean I won’t condemn them, not the same.
enigma – my friend, you need to pick a side with antifa. For or against. Do whatever reading you need. Make sure you get both sides.
I will investigate and will get both sides. They will still have to go a long, long way to be comparable to Nazis and the Klan. A long way!
enigma – I would agree with you, but they are young and eager now, just as the Nazis were in 1928. Keep that little nugget in mind. 😉
https://twitter.com/TheAtlPolitics/status/897827587023613953
“For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn’t perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do. It’s no coincidence that it was a Nazi sympathizer—and not an antifa activist—who committed murder in Charlottesville. According to the Anti-Defamation League, right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of the 372 politically motivated murders recorded in the United States between 2007 and 2016. Left-wing extremists committed less than 2 percent.
Second, antifa activists don’t wield anything like the alt-right’s power. White, Christian supremacy has been government policy in the United States for much of American history. Anarchism has not. That’s why there are no statues of Mikhail Bakunin in America’s parks and government buildings. Antifa boasts no equivalent to Steve Bannon, who called his old publication, Breitbart, “the platform for the alt-right,” and now works in the White House. It boasts no equivalent to Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who bears the middle name of a Confederate general and the first name of the Confederacy’s president, and who allegedly called the NAACP “un-American.” It boasts no equivalent to Alex Jones, who Donald Trump praised as “amazing.” Even if antifa’s vision of society were as noxious as the “alt-right’s,” it has vastly less power to make that vision a reality.
And antifa’s vision is not as noxious. Antifa activists do not celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery. They’re mostly anarchists.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Antifa is OK because it’s neo-fascist lite!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
frankly – can we all remember that it was anarchists who killed Archduke Ferdinand and his wife and started WWI? Anarchists are always trouble and need to be stomped out. The President was right.
Don’t much care for them but they are not nearly as bad as the Klan and the Nazis for the reasons Beinart states.
frankly – antifa is just as bad as the Klan, not as bad as the Nazis (real).
Antifa Protesters Set Fire on UC Berkeley Campus to Protest Milo Yiannopoulos 2/1/2017
If anyone has pyromaniac compulsions see… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ByCVgqgV-Y Antifa might be the right place for that type of individual.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/897860259037011969
Frankly, both groups are to be despised. Start counting the violent incidents countrywide where anyone of these fringe groups is involved. See if one is trending towards a higher number of incidents.
Thanks, frankly.
frankly – That is a broad statement and how does Peter Beinart know for sure? Was he in both?
I have to disagree with you here. With the exception of reasonable time/place restrictions, the government has no place in regulating speech, especially political speech, based on its content. Yes, abhorrent ideas are expressed, but once you start regulating others’ speech based on its content, eventually, your speech will be regulated based on its content. The way to defeat abhorrent speech is through other speech. I would hold that the actual text of the First Amendment is much more powerful than current Supreme Court jurisprudence holds. Relatedly, as I’ve posted elsewhere, the fuzziness arises when trying to distinguish “conduct” from “speech.”
I’m for regulating safety…
enigma, Please tell the Dem Mayors and Governors who tell cops to stand down and not keep the peace. Milo’s appearance was met w/ the same violence by antifa, a Soros funded group. I keep hearing about how well armed the alt right marchers were. Well, NOT ONE SHOT WAS FIRED as they were attacked. Have you considered this FACT??
I saw videos of the Nazis and Klan attacking protesters. There were multiple skirmishes and the narrative that the “they” you don’t name are poor innocent victims doesn’t fly. Only one side has proclaimed they want to start a “race war.” They’ve been arming themselves in preparation since before Antifa existed. #NotThe Same. BTW, while not one shot (that we know of) was fired. I still wonder about that helicopter. A woman is dead and multiple people were injured by someone who just happened to use a different method.
I wonder what would have happened at Texas A&M had they not cancelled the event or what will happen in Gainesville, FL. (University of Florida) What will the Republican Governors do” Whom will they protect? Florida has a long history of it’s sherrifs and cops being Klan members. A book you likely won’t read, The Devil in the Grove tells a compelling story of the 1950’s and 60’s.
enigma – it has been a long time since the 50s and 60s and all those police chiefs and sheriffs were Democrats.
Agreed ther WERE Democrats. That was before the mass hiatus of Dixiecrats. I see enough comments from current law enforcement people and racist tweets that I’m certain the problem has not been eradicated. Living in Florida which had the most lynchings per capita in the South. I drive on bridges and pass by Community Centers named after those who made it happen.
enigma – i am not a happy camper with lynchings or whippings, etc. to set the mind right. However, I do come from Montana and we hung rustlers on the spot. No one cared what their color was. It did cut down on the rustling problem. 😉
I don’t know how serious you are in seeming to support the concept. Many of the people that were lynched were killed for things like “talking back” “looking at a white woman” “being uppity”. South Carolina was good enough to document the rationale for many of their lynchings which is where I am quoting from. While there were some white people lynched, the overwhelming majority were black. By definition all were killed without a trial.
enigma – let me state for the record, I do not support lynching, even in Montana. I think what happened to blacks in the South was inexcusable. However, by definition, lynching is mob rule. Everyone in the mob takes a piece of the guilt. And, as DAs and ADAs have found, it is hard to charge a mob.
Not just blacks, and not just the South either.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/map-shows-over-a-century-of-documented-lynchings-in-united-states-180961877/
Enigma, “That was before the mass hiatus of Dixiecrats.”
The traditional mass hiatus of Dixiecrats was in 1948 before the 1950’s and 1960’s.
If one is talking about the claim that many racist southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party, that is false. One can see that such a change didn’t take place by looking at those elected officials and seeing that they stayed with the Democratic Party. Gradually those racists were replaced by those without racist intent and over a period of years those new non racist legislators were elected as Republicans.
The “new non racist legislators,” ROTFLMAO. I don’t claim to know what’s in their hearts. I do follow their policies and legislation. While some Dixiecrats started moving earlier. The mass exodus came in the sixties after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Lyndon Johnson underestimated when he said Democrats would “lose the south for a generation.
I gotta let you go Allan, I have better things to do than respond to the things you make up as you go. Enjoy your fact free existence!
Enigma, to you everyone is a racist and I haven’t seen you loaded with fact even now. I guess you are accusing all the Republicans of racism. That seems to be your modus opperandi, play the race card. What a waste.
“I don’t think every group should be allowed to speak everywhere. If legitimate safety concerns exist. Maybe they don’t get to speak on a college campus or a public space that can’t be adequately protected. We have no problem setting up speech zones at Super Bowls, away from the Supreme Court Building, near the White House for example. The groups may have a right to speak but not to provide danger to others or generate an unreasonable cost if it can’t be passed along.”
Sounds like a good argument to keep Antifa or BLM away. They were the ones who caused the violence.
I challenge you to show where BLM has caused violence anywhere. The admitted problem with my safety argument is all that it takes is one person in power to declare speech unsafe.
Don’t let the name, “anti-fascist” fool you. As Ennio Flaiano said back during the Mussolini days,
“There are two kinds of fascists: fascists and anti-fascists.” Ennio Flaiano
That is a rough translation. One of the problems is, that nobody really has a good definition of what fascism is. Orwell wrote on this, and you can see some of the definition issues here, in this short piece:
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
I tend to go with a simple definition of a group that is prepared to used street violence and bullying to get its political agenda met, including shutting down the political opposition by any means necessary.. Which criteria, Antifa more than meets. Along with SJWs, and BLM.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You may believe with all your heart that BLM is a fascist organization, you can repeat it 1,000 times. Neither of those things makes it true.
But, enigma, her logic makes it more likely true than your lack of content.
That’s what you want to run with, “more likely true?”
She had some logic attached to what she said. You had neither logic nor content.
“Affirmative Action Privilege”
There’s no such thing. Affirmative Action has always worked as much as a maximum limit as a minimum. If you’re “allowed” 10% of something when you represent 15% of the population. Is that really a privilege?
You can’t just look at raw numbers. If blacks are 15% of the U.S. population, but only 2% of blacks hold accredited degrees in electrical engineering, are companies nonetheless required to give engineering jobs to the 13% who are not engineers? What if Asian-Americans are 5% of the U.S. population but comprise 30% of electrical engineers. Do companies only hire 5% of Asian engineers and let the remaining positions remain unfilled? What if one candidate has an engineering degree from MIT and the other has a degree from Strayer? Can the company hire the more qualified candidate even though he is of a non-preferred race (white or Asian)?
You have an uninformed view of how these programs work. Also, the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action programs for businesses have been White Women. Most bid situations allow companities great latitute (sometimes too great) to include minority participation and I know of no case requiring non-engineers or unqualified people to be given jobs while passing over qualified applicants.
TIN – I personally believe in blind hiring like orchestras have. The musician goes behind the curtain, no one can see their gender, race, body sex, etc. Then they play their piece and they are graded by the same panel. Highest overall grade gets the job offer.
I am just not sure how to do that for other jobs.
enigmainblackcom, It is almost impossible to argue with a drunk or a outright idiot. And you my friend have found the village idiots.
Oops! Here we go again.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reports that Jason Kessler, the organizer of last Saturday’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is rumored to be a former Occupy Wall Street activist and supporter of Barack Obama.”
Looks like all roads lead to Obama. What has that sneaky guy been up to? Remember when he said he was an Indonesian citizen on his high school application and “if you like you doctor, you can keep your doctor?” Obama’s “holdovers” and activist/agitators are being paid overtime to subvert the duly elected U.S. government with criminal leaks and violent attacks.
Meanwhile, American President Trump is supporting law enforcement, the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right of all citizens to remember their ancestors.
Can you tell which one is the traitor and which one is the patriot?
Make your fact based argument that Barack Obama is responsible. I’ve got as much time as you need!
Sure, I bet you do have a lot of time on your hands, because you usually avoid directly answering other people’s question and comments.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I sometimes you because your questions normally come after a rant where you make “generalized negative statements” (see I’m playing nice, about black people. When given hypothetical questions and supplied two answers, neither of which I would have chosen, I tend to get tired of answering what I would have done over and over (that wasn’t you). I may miss some questions if they weren’t a direct reply to my comment as I may not go through all the comments multiple times although my first time opening a thread I generally real all existing comments unless there’s a huge number. I generally will answer a direct question if asked in earnest.
I don’t consider them “negative” rants as much as I do “positive” advice, in much the same way as Booker T. Washington used to do. (Quit stealing chickens and lying!) Only Poor Old Booker didn’t have to contend with a 72% Illegitimate Birth rate as a black problem, or he probably would have been less gentle about it, too.
Plus, some questions are pretty binary. You either support a Free Speech standard, or you don’t. Nazis either get to speak, or they don’t. As long as nobody is inciting violence, then run with it. I have no problem with Germany having a Nazi ban, because the Nazis ruined their country.
To me, the Klan is different. I don’t think you can lay all lynchings to them, and in historical perspective, they were far less deadly to blacks then other blacks. I think I gave you the numbers where Chicongo Thugz murdered more blacks in 10 years than the Klan did in toto. Today, in black neighborhoods, the danger is other blacks far and away above the Klan. Too, the Klan and certain Black groups have a lot of common interests. For example, anti-semitism, and anti-elitism;
White supremacists? I don’t know any. There are no whites I know who think they are superior to all other races, including Asians. I categorize the concept as more them being Black Inferiorialists, who rightfully think that something is majorly wrong with a group which has 3 out of 4 of its children born out of wedlock, and then blames white people for its problems. In addition to other dysfunctional black behavior. But, there are conservative blacks who share the same views.
And, like me, most every white person I know believes that there are some blacks (maybe 25% – 50% or so) who are the same as white people, and just as smart and just as good. And even wish them well. So, I guess you can call them White Supremacists, but I think that is just the title the Left gives them so they won;t have to address their valid concerns.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Anecdotal tales recounting hillbilly apocryphal superstitions do not evidence make. Nice sheet you’ve got there. Musta been a white sale down to the Gibson’s.
This is to “nazis are just misunderstood folks” reporter.
You’re a Democrat. Quit pretending that “evidence” would ever change your mind on any point. You wouldn’t know “evidence” if you stumbled over it in the dark.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
Don’t know what your point is George. I’m under no illusion about Lincoln and his feelings. The Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a preemptive strike to keep England and France from siding with the South because of their greater economy and trade. He also allowed to go on in states not fighting the union without any problem.
Maryland was occupied by federal troops to keep it from joining the confederacy. There’s a monument on the southern tip of MD, near the Potomac River which commemorates the men, women and children who were rounded up by federal troops after Lincoln declared martial law and placed in barb wired holding pens for the duration of the war, many dying of malaria, starvation, thirst and so forth. They were just farm folk in Southern MD who he suspected might be sympathetic to the south, but hadn’t actually done anything. Lincoln is no hero, the more you learn about him. And yes, he wanted to have freed slaves repatriated to Africa, along with Henry Clay and some other prominent politicians. I don’t know if that would have happened had Lincoln not been assassinated. I can’t see how it would be feasible, given the large numbers. I’ve read that it is more likely they would have been forcibly removed to one of the Caribbean islands.
He was at best a pragmatist. The Republican Congress was far more ready to end slavery than he was. Of course those Republicans, “The Party of Lincoln” have changed somewhat over the years though they still claim the mantle when it meets their needs.
TIN – repatriation to the Caribbean is certainly feasible. However I think his idea was to send them to Liberia. Personally, I do not think either was a good idea. Integration into American society is the best idea. Sadly that did not happen.
Back in the 1980s, when I was teaching college a black colleague told me that living in the South was easier than living in the North. In the South people were racist to your face, in the north they were racist behind your back. In the South you knew who to avoid. The North was every bit as racist as the South was. California is probably the most racist state in the union, or was. They killed most of their Indians, got rid of the Chinese, drove out the Mexicans, and just took the land..
Paul : Yes, I did read that Lincoln specifically mentioned Liberia. But the cost of trans-Atlantic passage for that many people seems prohibitive, especially in the shambled economy of the post-Civil War. I believe at that time, that blacks were about 50% of the U.S. population. The massive waves of immigrants from Germany, Scandinavia, Italy and other European countries came later on, which substantially shifted the demographics. There were some Irish immigrants during the Civil War, but they were uneducated, unskilled, and physically weakened by the famine. And another issue, is that a lot of wealthy Southernors put their money in European banks at the beginning of the war. Thus the North could take their land, but not their hard currency, or even their cotton, which they shipped to Europe and sold. Point being, I don’t think the U.S. had the resources to send the freed slaves to Africa, so perhaps a Caribbean Island would have worked. As far as integration, yes that’s an ideal, but it hasn’t worked and I don’t believe it really ever will. In a few hundred years, when economists predict the economic and political elite in the U.S. will be Asian, the working class will be Hispanic, and the whites will be about the same as the blacks (15%), the situation will be different because the Asians and Hispanics won’t care about historical complaints of blacks, and they’ll either sink or swim on their own without much sympathy or hand-holding.
PCS, Lincoln was being altruistic when he recommended “compassionate repatriation” for the benefit of the freed slaves as they would, at a minimum, be normalized and obtain a sense of home, nationhood and self-esteem. Americans refused to pay the price of passage.
George – who are these Americans you speak of?
Most crimes which have husband and wife on each side are true hate crimes. So I would put them into the basket. People who run their cars into Jap cars are usually hating the Japanese and it does not matter who is driving. People who hate dogs should be criminalized and shot.
People who hate Ferguson need to be charged with crimes. Like that dork Chuck Todd on NBC who called Ferguson a Ghetto.
Thank you for writing this and standing up for everyone’s rights.
Nazis are bad people
Now that is factual. Socialists of any stripe are incorrigibly BAD. That’s why the American Founders definitively precluded redistribution of wealth and social engineering by limiting Congress’ power to tax to General Welfare (roads, water, sewer, currency, post office, electricity), deliberately excluding Individual Welfare, and provided the right to private property which precluded government from taking private property from one man to give that private property to another, which violates the very definition of the word, private, and the Constitution.
To wit,
James Madison defined “private property” as
“that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
I regret to inform you: that ship has sailed.
this is to “so what’s wrong with social darwinism” george
I endeavor mightily to sift through your incoherence.
America persists now as a Post-Constitutional communist dictatorship.
The “Social Darwinism” began with “Crazy Abe’s” brutal and violent imposition of governmental “social engineering” and annihilation of classes, and “progressed” into the current corrupt collectivist state.
Ben Franklin, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”
What did Franklin know?
I’ll speak slower; Americans–your fellow citizens–have decided through the ballot box that they desire some sort of rudimentary safety net. For example; I for one, also do not desire to step over the bodies of dead children stacked outside of hospitals because their parents were poor. “Social Darwinists” would hold otherwise. You seem to yearn for some “good ole days”™ fantasy period of time where “those people” stayed on their side of the tracks until their labors were needed around the yard, and otherwise had the obsequiousness to die out of sight. Your reading of the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause has sailed; you might still catch it though, it’s only been gone nearly a hundred years.
This is to “I’m a real ‘Merikan” George
OK. I get it. You’re saying, on the site of a “legal and constitutional scholar,” that Article 1, Section 8 DOES NOT say what it says in plain English and that in a nation established by the Constitution, the Constitution does not in any way bear on that nation.
I think it is important that people know the truth; that you and your ilk are Constitution-Deniers and traitors. You know, “…just the facts, ma’am!”
“…Congress shall have Power To…collect Taxes,…to…provide for…general Welfare…”
The obvious, deliberate exclusion of individual welfare comports well with the right to private property in severely limiting government to security and infrastructure, don’t you think?
Article 1, Section 8
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”
Marky Mark, I get it. You’re above the Constitution and the law like Hillary Clinton whose “alleged” participation in the brand new “Veropharm” drug plant development in Ukraine, the plant built to supply profitable drugs mandated for purchase under Obamacare, Joseph Rago was investigating at the time of his death.
Poor Joseph. Poor America.
“That ship sailed.”
More random, incoherent, disconnected jibber-jabber. Hillary has zero to do with your dreamed of interpretation on the constitution, which is the topic here.
This is to “doc, am I ADHD?” Georgie
George – but Benji Franklin kicked the can of slavery down the road, hopefully until after he was dead.
Washington freed his slaves in his will and slavery should have been eliminated through the peaceful employment of free market economic tools, such as boycotts and divestiture. If the public seriously desired an end to slavery, all it had to do was promote alternative products and stop investing in or lending to planters.
George – if they really wanted to end slavery, the government would have paid for each slave and redeemed them. Jefferson only freed the ones by his maybe mistress, Sally Hemmings, eight in total, I think.
True. The ship sailed, but where a short trip was all that was needed, the ship kept on sailing to where there be dragons, and now it is falling off the earth.
You are just the flip side of George. Extreme to the other side, and probably worse in overall effect.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I approve of the allegory. Surprisingly, I somewhat agree with you substantively. I self-describe as a reform Libertarian.
This is to “reader of maps” reporter
So O.J. Simpson, Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy had no “hate” in their hearts?
Ron Goldman was Jewish.
Oh, how about the brutal murders the media completely ignored because they were too hateful:
The murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom.
Were those “hate crimes?”
“Hate crimes law” is a diversion for outfits like the NAACP, which hasn’t had a serious institutional mission in 40-odd years. For others (see Canada, France, Sweden) it’s a means of suppressing dissent.
“Under the USA Patriot Act, a violation of federal or state criminal law qualifies as “domestic terrorism” if it is intended to coerce or intimidate a civilian population or to coerce the policy of the government.”
It appears to me that the only thing the Patriot Act does is define the term “domestic terrorism.” All of the provisions of the chapter with respect to criminal or civil liability require either an international nexus or the use of extraordinary devices such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-aircraft missiles, etc. Section 2332 criminalizes conduct outside the United States directed at US nationals. Section 2332a criminalizes use of a weapon of mass destruction, but defines it in a way that would exclude an automobile. Section 2332b criminalizes acts that have an effect in the United States, but only if they “transcend national boundaries.” That’s not likely in the case of Charlottesville. Section 2332f relates to bombings of public places. Section 2332g deals with anti-aircraft missiles. Section 2332h deals with radioactive dispersal devices. Section 2332i deals with nuclear terrorism. Section 2333 provides a civil remedy for victims of international terrorism.
So, it seems to me that the only route to a federal prosecution is a civil rights case.
The Virginia state terrorism law might fit, though, provided that there is proof of intent to intimidate — probably not a real stretch under these circumstances, but the proof would still have to be submitted.
We the people have so many codes, rules, and regulations already on the books – just enforce them against hate & violence. The first amendment covers free speech, peaceful free speech, not destruction of tax payer property. The prisons & jails have truly some innocent people, why aren’t these destructive people in jail or prison?
Where is the push to repeal the Tenth Amendment? Isn’t that what was the true catalyst for the Civil War?
The Federal Government (including the courts) have been ignoring or eroding the Tenth Amendment for a long time. Surely those who believe in a “Living Constitution” would like to see it gone. Any mention of “State’s Rights” is declared to be a dog whistle for racism and bigotry by the left.
Didn’t the Fourteenth Amendment effectively repeal the Tenth Amendment?
Is this another attempt to convict him in the press? Police were saying the driver panicked after being pelted by rocks. Do any of you remember Reg Denny? He stopped his truck and let the same type of mob overwhelm him.
Posts like this is why I would follow JT into battle. He is intellectually honest, forthright, and brilliant. With the exception of his global warming blind spot.
well, there’s his “polls” issue. If one assumes he is smart enough to know better, then we can assume he is intellectually dishonest in promoting farcical manipulative data.
Lyrics from Its A Heartache:
It’s a heartache
Nothing but a heartache
Hits you when it’s too late
Hits you when you’re down
It’s a fool’s game
Nothing but a fools game
Standing in the cold rain
Feeling like a clown
It’s a heartache
Nothing but a heartache
Love him til your arms break
Then he lets you down
After reading this article and some of the comments I decided to listen to some Chuck Berry songs on the web. Roll Over Beethoven is a great one. Chuck used to perform at Jackson Park in Berkeley, Missouri which is one town next to Ferguson. I would go attend when I was a young teen.
Please folks. Go on-line and look up Chuck Berry and pull up the song Roll Over Beethoven.
It will help get you off the Trump depression syndrome which is rolling around America. All for naught. If any of you bloggers have been to Jackson Park in Berkeley, MO back in the old days then please chime in.
We already have state and federal crime statutes on the books to cover the deeds done. Murder in the First Degree.