Of all the people in my blogging circle, I am the least qualified to write about politics. Most of what I know I've learned from NPR, an AP Government class in high school, three trips to D.C., the West Wing, and you, my friends. So I start this conversation with some timidity, but I'll start it just the same. I'm bringing this up because talking is what I can do.
On May 3, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which expanded the scope of federal hate crimes to include sexual orientation, gender, and disability. The legislation died because President Bush was going to veto the bill, and there was not the necessary two-thirds majority to override his veto. Click here to read President Bush's position on the bill.
Part of the President's argument is related to the scope of government. Mr. Bush said that most states already have local legislation in place, and are prosecuting hate crimes effectively without federal involvement. As you already know, this is one of the basic philosophical differences that separate the political parties, and I can respect his decision - if it was really made for the reasons he stated - as a valid argument in light of his approach to government.
But I am afraid that President Bush gives states entirely too much credit. Alabama's state government responded the next week when the legislature, in one of the few votes held all year (which is another rant for a later date), voted not to consider state legislation that said basically the same thing as the federal legislation that had just passed. In a state that is still prosecuting Civil Rights murders that would probably have gone forever unsolved were it not for the guilty consciences of dying men, we need all the oversight we can get. We need the FBI to have the authority to prosecute hate crimes for what they are, and not to trust every sherriff, prosecutor, or legislator in Alabama to protect all of its citizens with equal enthusiasm. They made it clear on May 11 they won't be doing that this legislative year.
Focus on the Family lobbied against the bill, claiming that it is criminalizing thoughts and infringing on their freedom of speech. But our judicial system already considers a person's state of mind when sentencing crimes. This is why a drunk driver and a serial killer receive different sentences. Wouldn't expanding the scope of the definition simply allow prosecutors more ways to catch criminals? Isn't safety also a family value?
Finally, the President argues against the constitutionality of hate crime legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment gives equal protection under the law; the claim is that hate crime legislation offers special protection to certain groups. I really can't speak to this (Mary? Can you?). But if there is already hate crime legislation in place for other minority groups, hasn't this question already been addressed? How is expanding the scope of a law less legal than the initial law?
Every time this happens - every time our government has the opportunity to take care of all its citizens, and does not - I'm shocked. How can they justify this? is always my question. How is it possibly legal? It's not. But I do believe it will get better. Our generation is in graduate school right now; in another fifteen years my peers will be running for Congress. When we are in leadership, I really believe we'll finally see a shift in anti-gay legislation. Cold comfort, I know, but it's all I've got. So hold on, friends. It won't be this way forever. In the meantime, watch your back.
5 comments:
Stephanie,
More on politics--please! You have a distinctive voice that is both informed and practical. Would you consider being the VP for Edwards or Obama? Brian could take care of the kid while you preside over the senate. You can even shoot people in the face and not get fired.
Well, I'm definitely not an expert on the 14th Amendment after only one semester of Con law. The most true answer is that President Bush just like any other politician or Supreme Court Justice for that matter can construe the Constitution however best supports the position they already hold. It may be a republican ideology to limit the federal government's power, but it is almost laughable to hear Bush make that argument.
However, my understanding is that criminal law has generally been an area regulated by the states and when the federal government enacts federal criminal law statutes, they are not actually used in practice very much (b/c most murder cases of any kind would fall under state law), but it just serves as a model but it still matters because usually many states will follow the federal example.
The technical 14th amendment answer, I think, is that the Supreme Court has historically avoided any kind of heightened protection for sexual orientation (unlike race) because that would open the floodgates for a whole slew of issues they don't want to deal with (e.g. gay marriage, gays in the military, ect..) In fact, it took until 2003, for the Court to overrule a case that upheld a Texas statute making sodomy a crime finally admitting that even having that case "on the books" was offensive. So, for now, the government can even discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as long as there is a "legitimate" governmental purpose so it seems unlikely they'll go out of their way to protect individuals on that basis.
As for Bush's argument about the hate crime legislation, it seems to make very little sense to say that making it easier to investigate and prosecute hate crimes is denying "equal protection of the law" to victims of non-hate crimes. (I'm guessing this is the argument). His argument that it's constitutional to have heightened protection for race but not for gender, sexual orientation, and disability is likely based on the fact that the Court has so far interpreted the 14th amendment this way. Looking at the current Supreme Court, that isn't going to change for a while.
Wow, that seems long for a blog comment. Probably a discussion better had in person.
This is much more simplistic, but yeah, Mary, Brian and I talked about something similar to what you're saying, too. As soon as the government recognizes the homosexual population as a legitimate group, they are going to have to be given the same rights as everyone else. So in some ways he had to veto it, because otherwise the "floodgates" (of justice, in my opinion) will be opened.
growl
that was me (janet)
I have jillions of things to say and am too tired to type them. Whaddaya know? :)
Post a Comment