|
|
|
|
Here is the text of the long version
of the "anti-hate" bill (S1145, HR2662), which Rep.
John Conyers wants to introduce in place of the short version, HR 254,
which is now in House Judiciary.
Commentary by Rev. Ted Pike is in red.
What this bill does:
-
Creates a bias motivation justice
system for America, like Canada's. Suspician of bias motivation behind
a crime will justify federal invasion of local law enforcement. Such
unity of federal and local jurisdiction is the definition of a police
state.
-
This bill will eventually enforce
the ADL definition that hate equals bias against federally protected
groups. Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, etc... would receive special
federal protection in violation of the 14th amendment.
S 1145 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1145
To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions
to prosecute hate crimes.
This bill grants the government jurisdiction, not just
in violent hate crimes, but for general "hate crimes."
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 26, 2005
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SMITH, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. COLLINS,
Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr.
CHAFEE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs.
BOXER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. DAYTON,
Mr. DODD, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JOHNSON,
Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. OBAMA, Mr.
REED, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr.
PRYOR, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was
read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions
to prosecute hate crimes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act
of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or [1] perceived
[2] race, color, religion, national origin, gender [women], sexual
orientation [homosexuals/transvestites],
or disability of the victim poses [3] a serious national
problem.
[1] What does “perceived” mean? This
section asserts that if you expressed bias against women while assaulting
or attempting to rape a transvestite (a male) you would still be
punished for a hate crime against women. Your error in perception
does not absolve you from punishment for the great evil of “bias
motivation.” Thus,
thought is equally punished with action. Federal law requires triple
penalties (Sec. 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994).
[2] In Canada, after 35 years of hate law protection
of homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Indians, etc., whites and Christians
to my knowledge have never been afforded the same defense.
[3] When was the last time you heard
of a truly “violent” hate
crime in America -- the murder of Matthew Shepard six years ago?
Of course, violent hate crimes do occur, yet the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith, originator of this legislation, creates
the illusion of an “epidemic
of hate” crying
out for drastic federal takeover of local law enforcement. S.1145
is thus a "solution" in search of a "serious national
problem"
which is largely imaginary.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities
and is deeply divisive.
Yes, during post-Civil War lynchings, but such terror is not going
on today.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible
for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in
the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias.
These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively
with greater Federal assistance.
This confirms that government “assistance” means
jurisdiction over at least a “minority” of violent hate
crimes prosecutions.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
Federal law was never meant to adjudicate this “problem.”
The federal government is allowed to intervene in
states’ law
enforcement if crimes involve interstate commerce. ADL below wants
to provide as many pretexts as possible for such federal intervention.
ADL creates the fantasy that “violent
hate crimes” are
substantially affecting interstate commerce and the economy.
This gives the government a green light to take over jurisdiction
of bias crimes within states, intervening at will.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many
ways, including--
(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and
forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the
incidence or risk of such violence; and
(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods
and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating
in other commercial activity.
(7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce
are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
Below, ADL argues that “slavery” still
exists in the states in the form of bias-motivated violence. Hence,
government is entitled to invade states again, as in the Civil War!
(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary
servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those
held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced,
both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and
private violence directed at persons because of their race, color,
or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly,
eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of
eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and
relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and
continuing to date, members of certain religious and national
origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'.
Thus, in order to
eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents,
and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit
assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national
origins, [Under S.1145, the federal
government prohibits and punishes assaults in states motivated
by perceptions (thoughts).] at least to the extent such religions or national
origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption
of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution
of the United States.
(12) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated
by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to
work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution
of such crimes.[This is a definitive statement affirming the
purpose of S.1145: Federal jurisdiction over states.]
(13) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently
serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant
Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions.
[Nonsense! Even if we allow the bogus
ADL/police figure of about 7,500 “hate
crimes” every year, that amounts to only 1/20 of one percent of actual
crimes committed annually in the U.S.. Such is hardly a pretext for takeover
of states’ rights
by creation of a federal anti-hate bureaucracy.]
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section
280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).
Apart from the word “perceived,” this
is a reasonable definition. Yet ADL’s working definition, enforced
against the “Philly 11” Christians on October 10, 2004
is that “hate” equals
bias against federally protected groups, especially homosexuals and
Jews. If that bias motivates a crime, small or great, it becomes
a “hate crime” deserving of triple penalties. Such will
be the practical federal criteria for a hate crime if S.1145 becomes
law.
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a law enforcement official
of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may provide
technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of
assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of
[1] any crime that--
This empowers the federal government to invade
states’ jurisdiction at the request of a state law official
or an Indian tribe. The government has no constitutional right
to accede to such a request.
(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section
16 of title 18, United States Code); [The
government may prosecute any [1] assault (not just a hate
crime) in states! Unprecedented.]
(B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or Indian
tribe; and [The government may prosecute
any [1] felony (not just hate crimes) in states! Unprecedented.]
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability
of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws
of the State or Indian tribe. [The
government may prosecute any [1] bias crime (not just a
violent bias crime) in states! Unprecedented.]
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1),
the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed
by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 1 State
and to rural jurisdictions
that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses
relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
[This affirms the pervasive role of
federal jurisdiction to prosecute assaults, felonies, and
bias crimes in every corner of every state.]
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to assist State,
local, and Indian law enforcement officials with the extraordinary
expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate
crimes.
S.1145 wants to make states financially indebted to the government
and its hate crimes agenda.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program,
the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with the funded
jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected
parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and
universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed
under the grants.
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State that desires a grant under this subsection
shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time,
in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information
as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph
(A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on
a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State or political subdivision of a State or
tribal official applying for assistance under this subsection
shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is
needed;
(ii) certify that the State, political subdivision, or Indian
tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute
the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement
the grant, the State, political subdivision, or tribal
official has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit,
nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience
in providing services to victims of hate crimes;
and [ADL/B’nai B’rith]
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection
will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds
that would otherwise be available for activities funded under
this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall
be approved or disapproved by the Attorney General not later than
30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives
the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed
$100,000 for any single jurisdiction within a 1 year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2006, the Attorney General
shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted
for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and
the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007. [$5,000,000
annually for starters, to facilitate ADL’s
federal “anti-hate” jurisdiction in states.]
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority to Make Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the
Department of Justice shall award grants, in accordance with such
regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local
programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including
programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying,
investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
ADL has been defining "hate" and
training Justice Department, FBI and local police since 1990. It
will continue to do so if S.1145 is passed.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury
and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations
Service, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 such sums as are necessary
to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged
violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added
by section 7.
Open-ended funding for the creation of a vast “Big
Brother” hate crimes bureaucracy like Canada’s.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color
of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through
the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device,
attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual
or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance
with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined
in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, [1] aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR DISABILITY-
[2] `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under
color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph
(B), willfully
causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use
of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts
to
cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual
or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, or disability
of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance
with this title, or both; and
[3] `(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years
or for life,
fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or [4] an
attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill.
[1, 2, 3, 4] Attempting or succeeding
in the rape of a woman, transvestite, or homosexual, involving “bias” language
against the victim, can result in imprisonment “for any
term of years or for life”!
Under S.1145 federal government has authority
to prosecute and imprison those who, out of bias, assault or
attempt to assault women, transvestites, or homosexuals. If
involvement with interstate commerce can in any way be discovered – or
if a violent bias crime interferes with the victim’s
own economic activity – then the government can prosecute.
This is a virtual green light for federal jurisdiction!
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during
the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant
or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate
or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality
of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct
described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph
(A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary
device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or
foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
[1] `(I) interferes with commercial or other economic
activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of
the conduct;
or
[1] Any victim of a bias crime can
easily claim that they were commercially/economically affected
by it. Result: invitation for federal jurisdiction.
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
[2] `(b) Certification Requirement-
No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection
may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification
in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General,
the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General
specially designated by the Attorney General that--
[2] ADL inserted the above to allay congressional
fears that hate crimes enforcement contains no checks and balances.
Actually ADL dominates the U.S. Justice Department, having
been granted authority, under ADL's Hate Crimes Statistics
Act of 1990, to teach the U.S. Justice Department, FBI and
local police its hate crimes dogma.
The Attorney General or his underlings
may initiate federal investigation and prosecution in a state if:
[1] There exists an alleged crime morivated
by bias.
`(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the actual
or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, or disability of any person was a motivating
factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) he or his designee or she or her designee has consulted with
State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution
and determined that--
[2] `(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does
not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
[3] `(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government
assume jurisdiction;
[4] `(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government
assuming jurisdiction; or
[5] `(D) the
verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges
left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in
eradicating bias-motivated violence.
The above (D) means that if the government
does not like the outcome of a state hate crimes trial
it may intervene, possibly re-trying it. “The federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence” must
be “vindicated,” the
federal way.
Since when can states be without
jurisdiction to prosecute violent crimes, or “not intend
to exercise jurisdiction,” or request “that the
federal government exercise jurisdiction,” or “not
object to the federal government” assuming jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction over violent crimes by the states is mandated
by the Constitution. It is the sovereign right and duty of
the states.
What this bill is covertly referring
to is the possibility that the states might not want to cooperate
with an alien new “thought crimes” legal system,
designed to probe and punish “bias motivation” and “eradicate” hate
crimes at their most formative level – in our minds.
In such case, Sec.(1)(2)(A,
B, C, D) make it clear that the government will not tolerate
refusal to cooperate. It will invade the state which is
reluctant, upholding “the federal interest in eradicating
bias-motivated violence.” Clearly, all states will
be required, not only to pass federally approved anti-hate
laws, but enforce them to the government's satisfaction.
Alternative: the government will invade and do the job itself.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given
the term in section 232 of this title; and
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given the term in section
921(a) of this title.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
SEC. 8. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to the authority
provided under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment
of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall, if appropriate, amend
the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements
(in addition to the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of
a minor during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants
who recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
(b) Consistency With Other Guidelines- In carrying out this section,
the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other Federal
sentencing guidelines; and
(2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense.
SEC. 9. STATISTICS.
Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics
Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender,' after
`race,'.
SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the
application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments
made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to
any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
END
Back
to Top
|
|
