Comments on: John Boehner’s Immutable Characteristic

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:46:40 +0000

The issue of double jeopardy is very complex. I won’t even pretend to have a scholarly comment. There are, however, lots of good resources on the web to try and make sense of it. Burr, the very reason that it needs to be a federal issue seems to be that when a case is prosecuted under local/state jurisdiction, it can still be brought to trial at the federal level as a separate jurisdiction and not violate the 5th amendment protection.

By: Burr

Burr — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:07:04 +0000

Double jeopardy because as I understand it, if they fail to get a conviction, the option exists to take it to the federal level (since the assumption is that local bias and hate has prevented justice from being served).

By: Désirée

Désirée — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:27:30 +0000

Mark, motive alreadymakes a difference. If you plan to kill someone, that is first degree murder. If it’s spontaneous, that is second degree murder. These two crimes have different punishments. Does the murder victim care? No, she’s dead either way. So that argument just doesn’t fly.

How is it unconstitutional? The only thing I can think of is you think it violates the mandate against “cruel & unusual punishment” but I hardly see anything cruel or unusual. What hate crimes enhancements are for is punishing a person for attempting to inspire fear into a community by committing a crime against an individual. Sure, every crie is horrible and all would-be murderers, rapists and muggers should be dealt with, but when someone kills another person *because the person is gay (or black, or Jewish etc)* and makes it known that that was in fact the reason for the crime, the goal is to inspire fear into others of the same class as the victim. It’s no longer just a crime against an individual, but against a group.

Double jeopardy? How so? That means a person can’t be tried again for the same crime. It says nothing about charging a person for multiple crimes stemming from a single incident. So charging a hate crime murder as opposed to a “regular” murder in no way subjects a person to double jeopardy, effectively or otherwise.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:31:01 +0000

There are good arguments against a Federal hate crime laws (it is unconstitutional, it puts people in de facto double jeopardy, it won’t reduce violence, motive shouldn’t make a difference in punishment, etc.), but this argument is stupid.

By: homer

homer — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:29:38 +0000

Many light skinned African-Americans have passed into “white” society. There have been several interesting books on this topic- The Sweeter the Juice: A Family Memoir in Black and White by Shirley Taylor Haizlip is a particularly interesting one. Based upon Boehner’s so-called logic, race should not be covered because certain individuals have changed their race.

By: Burr

Burr — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:02:54 +0000

I’m with you on your point there, John. Whatever is or isn’t implemented, it needs to be the same across the board, but yet we’re not seeing a real push for that from the opposition, despite the principle they claim to be extolling.

By: bruce

bruce — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:11:22 +0000

It is time we marched on every congressman who could make such as outrageous comment. If he had to be waiting on a bunch of us daily with signs and banners asking him to reconsider he might not like that. It is time we gathered our troops and march on all of the bastards and make this a huge issue!

By: David

David — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:47:34 +0000

political affiliation is not immutable either, and yet, though it is not specifically protected, the fact remains that the Constitution contains protections for political beliefs, though such guarantees as those found in the 1st amendment – which effectively prevents the government from suppressing unpopular political parties.

In essence, Boehner’s argument is that Constitutional protections only apply to immutable, intrinsic traits, and this would apply to free speech, petition to redress of grievances, and all other rights in the context of mutable characteristics.

For example, the Second Amendment could be waived for residents of a particular state, since residency in any particular state, or city, is a mutable characteristic. Under Boehner’s argument, we could completely ban guns in Texas, but not anywhere else, since gun owners could always move if they wanted to continue to own guns.

Additionally, Boehner has in essence argued that the Democrat majority can now set aside such Constitutional protections as they apply to political affiliation, and actively suppress the Republican party, since political affiliation is mutable.

In other words, Boehner has no clue what the Constitution actually achieves, and is clearly unfit for public office, especially since ignorance is not immutable.

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:30:21 +0000

@ Ben

:).

I am sure if I try to clear things up…we’ll all feel misunderstood and confused.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:08:57 +0000

but wait. we’re told that everyone is really heterosexual, and that this cannot be changed, just un-holy-fied.

I’m confused.