Great -- a law that depends on MIND READING!  Aren't those crimes bad enough to merit stiff penalties on their own?  Now we penalize the REASON?  What is this -- a "think PC or else" law?  Somebody needs to get real here and focus on something important... like the ECONOMY or something.  What's next?  Jail time for Polish jokes?

Why not just punish the crime, and not the presumed motivation behind it?  

I believe these bills should apply to the officers of the courts (JUDGES) who have proven repeatedly with no repercussions of bias in rulings and strong abuse of authority. I would be willing to bet this bill and possible law could not be applied to misconduct by judges.

When is legislation really going to protect the people on equal levels and playing fields to hold all accountable by laws? Some very fine examples are located at www.lawliars.com

This abuse must come to a head and be addressed, and it must start at the capitol.

Rep. Schuitmaker, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I agree with the intent of this bill that we should not be a society that tolerates hate of any kind. This is a noble principle. But as I have stated in the past - the problem with these bills is it provides different victims with greater rights and for this reason it is unfair. A crime is a crime and our justice system should be fair. Why treat victims unfairly? My substitute will allow us to find that common ground.”

 It looks like almost everyone would fall under one of the categories. The only non-protected class that I see are midgets. Will we still be allowed midget tossing at bars?

We still are waiting for a real and persuasive evidence to support the contention that “bias-motivated” crimes are more serious (do greater harm to the victim and society), and therefore warrant more severe punishment than otherwise identical crimes motivated by something other than “bias.”

Until that is forthcoming, there is no justification for even considering a law such as that proposed by HB 4836.

 Freespeaker, Maybe someone will make you an example. Then maybe you will feel the difference. You're trying to come on as a legal intellectual. It isn't working.

albaby2:

 Freespeaker, Maybe someone will make you an example. Then maybe you will feel the difference. You're trying to come on as a legal intellectual. It isn't working.

Hm-m-m-m-m.  Is that some kind of threat?

I am still waiting to see persuasive evidence that crimes motivated by "bias" are more severe than otherwise identical crimes motivated by something other than bias.

And I repeat that until such evidence is produced, there is no reason to even consider this type of legislation.  

That is not intellectual posturing, it simply is an honest challenge to those who support this legislation to validate its need.  If the need for a law like this cannot be validated, there is no good reason or purpose for its being enacted.

 You have a good point about the Legislature, it ought to focus on the economy.  And deal with the No. 1 cause of premature death and disorders, tobacco, which have already and are currently creating massive current and "legacy" costs, devastating Michigan financially, for background, see http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cost.htm

You have agood quote from Ted Nugent about guns and crime. Indeed, medical research for 170 some years verifies that guns don't cause crime, tobacco users do,  http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventcrime.htm 

Crime is historically about 90% by tobacco users, is what the research shows.

Michigan's prison system costs $3.7 billion this FY. End the tobacco caustion, cut that budget approaching 90%, suddenly, Michigan would have a surplus, not a deficit.

Nonsmokers massively subsidize this aspect of tobacco effects (and the others as well).

Tobacco users motive in the crimes they commit is hardly a real issue. The real issue the Legislature ought to focus on, is crime prevention, for esample, getting the crime prevention act of 1909 enforced, law # MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216,  http://medicolegal.tripod.com/milaw1909.htm

 This House Bill #4836 thoroughly disregards and ignores our U.S. Constitutions "Equal Protection" under the law.  It creates a  "Super" unlawful class of individuals.  Any of our elected representatives who support this have violated their oath of office.  It is similar to the idea that Aryan's are a superior race. 

Man cannot and should not be involved in creating a Utopian nation, because  throughout history when man tinkers with the Rule of Law, Common Law and our miracle creation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights some individual loses their freedoms and liberties.

Hitler and Stalin tried to devise their idea of Utopia -- the consequence was that many suffered and died. 

It is up to the courts and juries to decide the degree of punishment for an offense against another under the Rule of Law and our U.S. Constitution.

"Bias-motivated" crimes are just what the term conceptualizes - "bias" means -- partiality, prejudice, favoritism and a  preconceived notion.  That concept runs totally counter to "Equal protection under the law." 

"Bias-motivated" crimes are just what the term conceptualizes - "bias" means -- partiality, prejudice, favoritism and a  preconceived notion.  That concept runs totally counter to "Equal protection under the law." 

Absolutely correct-and that is why there are so many different levels of appeal because equal protection under the law exists only in theory-not in practice  The blindfold on the statue of justice is supposed to suggest impartiality but in  it also limits her vision. She apparently couldn't see the injustice meted to minorities.

Judges are not always fair or impartial. Why do you think political parties want to appoint so many judges when they get in power?  To uphold the Constitution? LOL That's what they claim, but in practice they want to bias the courts in their favor. So much for impartiality, equal protection, etc.  (The liberal way is to legislate from the bench). Sandra Day O'Connor ( a Reagan appointee)suspended the 14th amendment (in Grutter or Gratz) because she thought we should wait for 25 years to see if affirmative action was still needed then. Did she rule on the constitutionality of the case or her empathy?. She's the kind of judge Obama is looking for. What you are saying is that the judge should rule on the serverity of a case using  empathy. Some judges have less empathy toward those not like them. That's why we need to set standards-to remove subjectivity from judgements.

 Smokedoctor - the website you are promoting http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventcrime.htm is a bunch of hogwash.  Anyone can look up and find a website to promote their crusade. That does not mean that the website is factual.

Now you are using HB 4836 -Create “bias-motivated” crime to state that crime is caused by, "historically about 90% by tobacco users" through the above idiotic website. 

You can find any website you want to promote any agenda including yours, but I don't want government subsidizing anything, nor do I want government violating our constitutional protections.

We all have "equal protection under the law" -- and we don't need "SUPER", "SUPERIOR" protected classes of individuals that violate anothers individual rights.

Government cannot produce their terms for a "Utopia."  We've learned what can happen when they make that attempt, ie., Hitler's "Aryan Nation" and Stalin's "Marxism."

 "Bias" means -- partiality, prejudice, favoritism and a  preconceived notion.  That violates the 14th Amendment that you and "albaby2 " wish to ignore and obliterate.  Well, that is what our elected and appointed government public servants have taken an oath to uphold and protect, whether you like it or not.  The oath of office is a covenant made to the people to uphold our foundational documents that preserve our freedoms and liberties.  

You can take your "progressive" theories and run them up the good ol' water spout, but our U.S. Constitution still stands as our bed-rock, and has not been found irrelevant or un-fashionable except by those who wish to trash it. 

The U.S. Constitution is still the rampart to protect our liberties.  If you don't like our foundational documents you can always find another country that does not protect  individual liberties -- but don't attempt to undermine and destroy what our founders bestowed on us.  

There is no perfect society -- but I'll take our Limited Republic any day over fascism, marxism, socialism and mob rule.

 The twin rights to pure air and to pure out fires are BASED ON the Constitution.  Read the 5th and 7th Amendments, for example.  For a list of precedents enforcing these constituional rights, see http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pureaircases.htm

Re tobacco users commiting most crimes, I am agreeing with you that the motive of the criminal is generally quite irrelevant. As tobacco use is a medically known mental disorder, tobacco users reasoning is typically impaired, whether called "hate crime bias" or some other term. That is why most crime is by tobacco users.

Have you read, studied, mastered, all the references at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventcrime.htm  (The websites do not claim to be the authority, they are instead bibliographies of the actual references on the matter).

There are many "interpretations" loosley based on the Constitution . A conservative court may interpret it differently than a liberal court. Much of what passes as something derived from the Constiutution is nothing more than one Judicial fiat based on an previous Judicial fiat. So there are no smokers rights-anywhere-even in your own home-because a judge says so. Show me where it says that in the Constitution. There are two side to the Second Amendment-both sides claiming there interpretation is the only possibly correct one.

 There is only one way to interpret the U.S. Constitution -- and it is as it is written.  If you cannot understand its meaning then go to the writings of the founding fathers who signed it.  You'll find their writings in the Federalists Papers.

The only way the "Liberals" interpret it in too many cases is to decide that the U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant and therefore make decisions based on their "Agenda."

The U.S. Constitution was not written to limit the rights of the people -- it was written to limit the ability to create a behemoth government that will limit and deny the rights of the individual.  We have a government that for the last 100 years has ignored, abrogated and aborted the meaning of the constitution, because we have so-called public servants that have gone miles beyond the bounds of constitutional limitations, and you need very deep pockets to fight back in court to have the peoples rights restored.

I only hope that the "Tea Party" rally's grow in abundance and those who believe in the Limited Government that was bestowed on us suceed before the anvil drops and destroys the liberties that so many have fought and died for.

One of the Maryland delegates overheard a woman ask Benjamin Franklin, as he was exiting Independence Hall, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin’s reply was serious and focused, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Thomas Jefferson:

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.   John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to M. D'Ivernois, 1795.

Moreover, everyone in a free society is limited by the respect for the equal rights of everyone else, and it is government's obligation to protect the equal rights of us all.

"The equal rights of man and the happiness of every individual are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Coray, 1823.

The Founding Fathers established a government based on a fundamental understanding of human nature and the proper relationship of a nation's government to the natural endowment of human beings. This is a concept of government that has not been equaled or surpassed either before or since. Our natural rights, therefore, help define the proper role of government.

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is all the laws should enforce on him." --Thomas Jefferson to F. Gilmer, 1816.

And because we are compelled for many reasons to live in a society with government does not mean that we must give up any of our natural rights.

"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson to F. Gilmer, 1816.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1816.

Just because a government is mandated by, or agreed to by the people is no assurance that it is not a despotism. The Algerians were prepared to install, "by the will of the people," a despotic theocracy. As they say, "one man, one vote, one time."

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.   

James Madison:

"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
~ James Madison, Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788

Albaby2 - you'd do well to start studing the words of our founders, instead of going off on your tangents of judges making un-Constitutional (unlawful) decisions!

inform4:

 There is only one way to interpret the U.S. Constitution -- and it is as it is written.

And there is only one way to interpret the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud? As it is written? Why then are there different sects in religions, and different interpretations of these holy books? And why then did the founders see the need for a judicial branch of government, if the only way to interpret our constituion is "as it is written?" Why did we need 27 Amendments?

inform4:

"The equal rights of man and the happiness of every individual are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Coray, 1823.

He must have forgotten about the Negroes and the Native-Americans.

inform4:

Albaby2 - you'd do well to start studing the words of our founders, instead of going off on your tangents of judges making un-Constitutional (unlawful) decisions!

Article III, Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...

There are different religions, sects and interpretations of the various holy books, because the people and individuals have a right to decide, spiritually which religion they want to follow. Just as there are those who in their own right chose not to follow any religion, or believe in the various holy books.  They are called Atheists and Agnostics. 

As for our form of government --

A judicial branch is needed to correct the possible mis-interpretation by others of U.S. Codes of Law.  To rectify if legislation, laws or Acts run counter to the Constitution.  To correct the Executive Branch if it over-steps the boundaries of our U.S. Constitution. To create over-sight of all  three main branches of the Federal government.

Additions have been added to our U.S. Constitution -- called Amendments -- to make distinctions of the Rule of Law, the Common Law and the Law of Nature, ie., individual rights.  Such as in the 13th Amendment.  Many amendments were introduced due to disagreements in the various courts of law,  that ran counter to our Constitution or Natural Rights.  Such as - giving women the right to vote -- the 19th Amendment. The 18th Amendment "Prohibition" was ratified by Article V in 1919 and repealed by the Twenty-First in 1933.  

Amendments are added to "perfect" or "spell-out" rights, such as the original Bill of Rights, which was in itself debated as to whether the first 10 Amendments were need.  Wiser heads prevailed, because there are always those individual or groups that want to deny anothers "Natural and Constitutional Rights."  The 22nd Amendment was added because the people decided they wanted to limit the term an individual can serve as President of the U.S.

Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to allow the people to make amendments, because they knew that there would be situations and issues that would come about that needed to be secured by our Constitution.  And, if need be repealed if they created more harm then good.

Our U.S. Constitution was never considered a "perfected" document, but they were also wise enough to know that in order to substain and secure our freedoms they needed to be promulgated.

No, we do not have a Utopia, but our founders came as close to creating a miracle that no other country has ever developed in protecting lawful individual rights, choice, and decisions on responsibilities.

Slavery was and is wrong and finally eliminated with an amended.  But, we would still be under the rule of England if they had not compromised.  Yes, the compromise was cruel, but the South would not have ratified -- and we would not have had any form of a new and independent nation. King George III would have been able to keep the colonies under his thumb under his "Divine Right of Kings." 

Since I believe in Christ's words -- may I remind you that He (Christ) said that we will always have our poor.  In other words, man himself and alone will never, ever be able to create perfection. We can also ask, "why did not Christ use all his power to end the suffering of the poor, or eliminate hatred, prejudice and bigotry while he walked the earth -- or even after?"  Because -- he left man/woman to use his or her own conscience and make her/his own choice -- whether it be right or wrong.

 All too often when attempts to change the laws to benefit an individual or group -- they often violate anothers right to their property, the benefits and enjoyment of their labor, pursuit of happiness, liberty, choice and time-of-life.  That is also why the founders included Article V, which makes amending the constitution a strenuous procedure.  Hopefully, keeping anything superfluous difficult to add.

Nor, did our Founding Fathers ever state that they were infallible.  That is why our founding documents allow for amendments.

Laws will not end bigotry or the hatred in an ignorant persons heart or head, but "Equal Protection Under the Law" has meaning.  Courts do not rule the way we think they should in all cases.  That is why there is the ability to appeal.  Yes, I've witnessed abuse of the law by judges, courts, juries and attorneys.  Again, people, individual's, persons are not perfect. We cannot correct their mind-set by creating  "Super" unlawful classes of individuals based on race, gender or religion.

The icon of justice can be seen in all the courts from the High Court to the Supreme Court. It is blindfolded. This means that equal justice should be given to everybody irrespective of caste, creed or colour.  "Should be", but it is not always the case.  Creating laws based on a "bias-motivated crime" could and will create more abuse, because it will just be another law that can be wrongly and injuriously handled and decided.  Instead, the people should stand up and speak out when "equal justice" is abused and disregarded.

This is my final argument on this issue.

You have written an eloquent message. Thank you.

Just one bit of background on slavery and the Thirteenth Amendment may be helpful to your readers. The language of the Thirteenth Amendment was “not the language of repeal; it does not acknowledge that slavery ever rested upon statute law, or upon right; but it denies its authority longer to exist.” McElvain v Mudd, 44 Ala 48; 4 Am Rep 106, (Jan 1870) (Dissent by J. Peters, ¶23).

The reason for that, is that slavery was never constitutional, never legal. Like other offenses that some people commit, it (slavery) was being committed, but never pursuant to constitutional nor legal authorization.

For background on the unconstitutionality of slavery prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, see http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm

You say "There is only one way to interpret the U.S. Constitution -- and it is as it is written." That is accurate.

Then you contradict yourself, and you say to do the opposite, "go to the writings of the founding fathers . . . in the Federalists Papers."

That is NOT true. The Federalist Papers are NOT the words of the Constitution.

Instead, they are mere political advertisements of the era, and have no more standing as to what the legal document, the Constitution, says and means, than political advertisements of nowadays on legal documents of nowadays.

Please do not misdirect your readers off the words of the Constittuion, onto political advertisements.

For example background, see, e.g., http://medicolegal.tripod.com/spooneruos.htm in a significant context derived from the words of the Constitution.

Inform4, you make a good, if somewhat scattered, case against your fundamentalist view of the Constitution.

 You must be a lot of fun at parties.  In my opinion you have a one-track mind that must bore people to tears.  Advertisements my foot! They were essays. I wonder how much would have been accomplished if they had your likes in tow during the Convention of 1787? We'd probably still be bowing to the British monarchy.

 http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Welcome to our Federalist Papers e-text. The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.

The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/antixx.htm

The Anti-Federalist Papers

Papers, leaflets and discussions in the constitutional congress dealing with the same topics as Federalist Papers from another point of view

*** Quote * Context ***

In 1778 the states debated the merits of the proposed Constitution. Along with the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers documented the political context in which the Constitution was born. The Federalist Papers defended the concept of a strong central government with their arguments in favor of the constitution. The Anti-Federalists saw in the constitution threats to rights and liberties so recently won from England. The authors did not only discuss the issues of the constitution, many general problems of politics were also put under debate; Should the members of the government be elected by direct vote of the people?, Does slavery have any place in a nation dedicated to liberty? etc.

Normal 0 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"; panose-1:2 15 7 4 3 5 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Baskerville Old Face"; mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Footlight MT Light"; mso-font-alt:"Book Antiqua"; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"StarTrekGen Hv BT"; mso-font-alt:"Courier New"; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:decorative; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:135 0 0 0 27 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Baskerville Old Face"; mso-font-kerning:0pt; font-weight:bold; mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;} h2 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Footlight MT Light"; color:red; font-weight:normal;} h3 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:12.0pt; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:3.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:3; font-size:13.0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold;} p.MsoTitle, li.MsoTitle, div.MsoTitle {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"StarTrekGen Hv BT"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black;} p.MsoBodyText2, li.MsoBodyText2, div.MsoBodyText2 {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:navy;} p.MsoBodyText3, li.MsoBodyText3, div.MsoBodyText3 {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:red;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:#820606; mso-text-animation:none; text-decoration:none; text-underline:none; text-decoration:none; text-line-through:none;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} pre {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; tab-stops:45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"; color:black;} tt {mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";} span.signature1 {mso-style-name:signature1;} p.style6, li.style6, div.style6 {mso-style-name:style6; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.body {mso-style-name:body;} span.contentsmall {mso-style-name:contentsmall;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:219480495; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-1904816758 -1572031164 -1903119166 465481562 -2071023278 1087276718 1014416816 2086421360 -1233898976 1166062334;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:220219549; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:-601316842;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:–; mso-level-tab-stop:.25in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.25in; text-indent:-.25in; font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> 

"Do not separate text from historical background.  If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -- James Madison

While the Federalist Papers are indeed not a part of our Constitution, the statement above is the reason why they're a legitimate source to consult when studying the intent of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In order to not misinterpret, we need context.  For context, we need to fix the arguments in the colloquialixms and history of the day.  The reason why the plays of Shakespeare seem, at first glance, so alien to new students is that they're unaccustomed to the syntax, colloquaial terms and history of the time in which they were written.  With a bit of education in these areas, their meaning becomes much more clear and easier to appreciate.  This is also true of our Constitution.

Tossing-in the Bible is a red herring argument; not germane to our discussion.  That said, scholars constantly endeavour to do exactly what I outline above; to place biblical references in history and divine the true meanings of the writers by immersing themselves in the language.

One more similarity between the two: people with agendas try to twist their meanings to their own purposes.  This is one of the reasons why there are several different religious factions.  This is human nature, a well-known phenomenon that we can guard against.  In government, this is what those "checks and balances" are all about.  Our founders thought the three divisions of government would suffice.  I say that there is one more: We The People.  We are all expected to abide by the law, yet if we get active in enforcing it, we're accused of "taking the law into our own hands."  Yet isn't this exactly what is expected of us?  To abide by the law and discourage others from not doing so?  To live our lives in support of our ideals?  Our founders did, to the point where they risked their lives to do so.  A good friend of mine once said, "We must live our lives each day as if our Constitution, country and way of life depends on it."  I agree.  It means more than abiding by the law.  It means speaking out when the rights of others are violated, even if we disagree with them.  It means not looking the other way when a friend or relative commits a crime.  It means that in order to earn the title of "patriot," one must be willing to take up arms and risk one's life to defend our freedoms and our Constitution.  This can sound pretty high-falutin' and pretentious, to be sure, yet these days we have seen how easily things can break down.  The LA riots, where the only stores to remain standing and not looted were those protected by men with guns.  Katrina and the gun confiscations.  All the acts of terrorism that parade on our nightly news.  Patriotism is more than writing a check to your favorite lobby.  It can be tested as quickly as a knock at your door.

In this spirit, we are here questioning the validity of another law that seems to violate both the Constitution and common sense.  Our debate IS due dilligence.  Our actions in opposing this flawed legislation is our duty, as outlined above.  (As is your support, if you disagree.  Vigorous debate is as vital to our way of life as any war ever was, and far more constructive.)  Keep it up!  But don't get off track.  It is not necessary to go to the core of every legal argument back to the Bill of Rights when examining every bit of legislation, unless one sees it as an educational opportunity.  (Thank you, Inform4!)

Tossing in the bible is a good analogy. People read into it what they want, as do they with our constitution. The constitution is a "living" document. That is, it has been, and will be amended and interpreted to suit the times and situtions that arise as we as a nation progress along our path. The basic ideology of freedom and representative government is never changing and at it's core. The founders gave us that ideology, we are left to make it work.

I agree with those who view this proposed legislation as unneeded. Crime is crime, no matter the motive. Motives may be used to determine guilt, but should not influence punishment.

 I have to disagree with you gypsy on the U.S. Constitution being a "Living Document." I will present to you Chief Justice Scalia's argument as to why it is not.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383879/posts

Scalia: 'Constitution Not Living Organism'
Newsmax ^ | April 14, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:03:45 PM by winner3000

The Constitution is not a "living" document that changes with the times U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says, but is to be interpreted on what the Founding Fathers meant at the time they drafted the Constitution.

That's how he determines the meaning of the document he told an audience Monday at Nashville's Vanderbilt University according the Vanderbilt Hustler.com.

Story Continues Below

"The Constitution is not a living organism," Scalia insisted.

Taking a position at odds with current opinion that holds that the Constitution changes in order to meet the needs of a changing society and thus acts as a "living document" that allows for flexible interpretations, Scalia says he takes what he called the "Originalist" point of view.

"Originalism was the dominant philosophy until 50 years ago," said Scalia. He repeatedly challenged the "living constitution" doctrine held by most law students and professors.

"Most people think the battle is conservative versus liberals when it's actually originalists versus living constitutionalists," Scalia said.

Scalia said he reads the text of the Constitution in a literal manner, a method in which the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the text guides interpretation. "Words mean what they mean."

"My system is flexible," he added, and went on to cite examples of his flexibility. "If you want the death penalty, pass a law ... if you want abortion, pass a law ... if you want something, persuade other citizens and pass a law," he said, by implication taking issue with activist judges who use the bench to create new laws.

Scalia said he does not foresee an immediate change from the active judiciary created by the living constitution approach, because, "It's a lot more fun to talk policy than to talk texts, and it puts more power in the hands of judges."

The living document controversy is not the only issue dividing Scalia from his colleagues - he has disagreed with his fellow justices in the matter of the court basing decisions on foreign law.

As Newsmax reported, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that as a justice she considers foreign laws – not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.

Ginsburg said criticisms of relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey."

She also came down on the side of the living constitution position, telling members of the 99 year-old American Society of International Law in Washington, D.C. that "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."

In 2003, Republican Justice Sandra Day O'Connor openly stated that the court should look abroad for judicial guidance, saying "The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark."

O'Connor indicated she and the High Court had been influenced in recent rulings, citing foreign laws as having helped the Court rule that executing mentally retarded individuals as illegal. She also said the Court relied on European Court decisions when it struck down Texas's law outlawing sodomy or sex between adults of the same gender.

This drew a sharp rebuke from Scalia who wrote: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." he said.

 Stu, if you read gypsy's post to me: "And there is only one way to interpret the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud? As it is written? Why then are there different sects in religions, and different interpretations of these holy books? And why then did the founders see the need for a judicial branch of government, if the only way to interpret our constituion is "as it is written?" Why did we need 27 Amendments?" -

 You will see why I threw in the religious issue. It was in response to gypsies above querie.

Seems that Justice Scalia's "originalist" view is not widely held.

It is ironic that you, and Justice Scalia, seem to find the opinion of many Justices who are influenced by "foreign laws" as "dangerous dicta", when in fact, the idea of democratic government, and a republic, did not originate with the founding fathers, but was adopted from the theories of government of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.

 And, I thank you Stu for your zeal and patriotism.  Too many people take their liberties for granted.  They believe that our U.S. Constitution "gives us our rights", instead of protecting our rights.  We are all born with our "Natural Rights" and it is only despots, dictators and zealots that deny and usurp every individual's rights.  As the saying goes, "Freedom is not free" -- we have to constantly stand vigilant to preserve them.

gypsy -- I cannot believe you! The Supreme Court Justices take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not foreign law, not the U.N. Charter or any other "foreign" entity.  It is the U.S. Constitution and only the U.S. Constitution and our laws that they are mandated and made a covenant to uphold.  

Upholding the US Constitution doesn't mean you ignore man's history. Our Constitution was based on laws dating back to the Magna Carta, and ideology and governments dating back to Rome and Greece. Who said anything about the UN charter, or upholding foreign laws? Me thinks you may be a wee bit excitable. A good judge will know and respect not only the law as it is written, but why it was written, and how it relates to the circumstances brought before the court. The United States is still a young country, and has much to learn from the successes and failures of nations throughout history.

A Supreme Court judge must interpret the Constitution to apply it to cases brought before it, cases that would not have been known of, nor possible, when the Constitution was written. To have a knowledge of how and why laws were created is essential to this task.

Is it against the 1st Amendment to allow a religious display on public property? There is no "fundamental" yes or no to that question in the 1st Amendment. Justices need to interpret what the founders were trying to accomplish in writing the 1st Amendment, and then apply it fairly to the particular circumstances of the case. A knowledge of the history of religion in governments would serve them well.

It's easy to say all a Supreme Court Justice has to do is "uphold" the Constitution, but there is much more to it than that.

Obama's new Supreme Court candidates remarks leave no question about his, and her, respect for the Constitution and it's deliniating the responsiblities of the different branches of Government. It was verified by her comment that the "appeals court is where policy is made". IOW it goes right along with liberals desire for a "living Constitution" that can be modified by Judicial fiat to suit the whims of the moment (and the party in power). The snickering of the members in attendance in the press conference when she admitted she shouldn't be saying that leaves no doubt of the intention of the liberals,  and the liberals disdain for the Constitution.

No doubt she will be approved as the Dems will probably be joined by Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and John McCain-who will be anxious to reach across the aisle.

According to the MichiganVotes (Mackinac Center) synopsis of this bill:

Passed in the House (66 to 43) on May 20, 2009, to establish a new “bias-motivated” criminal offense for a person who selects the target of a violent crime or property crime based on a perception of the victim’s disability; gender; national origin or ancestry; age; race, color, or ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression of gender; or a person’s or group’s association with one or more of these. Violations would be subject to up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine if the underlying (“predicate”) crime is a misdemeanor, and up to 50 percent more than the sentence authorized for the predicate crime if it is a felony. A person could not be convicted of both the predicate crime and the “bias-motivated” crime (prosecutors would have to choose one or the other).

The questions remain:  Is a crime motivated by “bias” (as described above) really more severe in its impact on victim and society and so deserving of extra punishment?  If so, why and how?  Supporters of this outrageous legislation have yet to answer those key questions.

Without coherent, concrete answers to those questions, this is just more emotion-based, feel-good, politically “correct” legislation of the sort that has led to the deplorable growth in Michigan prison population over the years.  It should be rejected by the Senate. 

 In recently speaking to a dear friend of mine regarding the denigration of our U.S. Constitution by those we have elected to serve, and who have taken an oath of office -- he stated that we should be asking them, "What Article, Amendment or Section in the U.S. or State Constitution would you like to  remove or change?"    If they  even bothered to answer (we the peon's in their eyes)  that would sure give us clue of what their true motives are.    

It seems more and with increasing velocity they are not only violating our Constitutions' (meaning Federal and State), but they are shrinking and decreasing the rights of the people, while increasing and expanding government authority greatly beyond the boundaries of the Rule of Law. 

I hope we have enough intelligence in the Senate to have this bill tossed in the un-Constitutional trash heap.

I have to really agree with you on this issue.  Not only do we have a fiat monetary system, but we have an out-of-control fiat government that ignores the Rule of Law and is attempting, no suceeding  -- in tearing down its foundations brick by brick. The only thing "living" in our Constitution is the monster clone they have been implementing with no heart or soul.  

inform4:

but we have an out-of-control fiat government that ignores the Rule of Law and is attempting, no suceeding  -- in tearing down its foundations brick by brick.

And it's time we prosecuted the Bush administration for it's crimes. I agree.

I also agree this bill should be rejected in the Senate. Punishment should be based on the results of crime, not the motive for commiting it.

 What crimes do you have in mind?

 What would you suggest charging the Obama Admistration Justice Dept officials with?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/protecting-black-panthers/

Not too hard to see where Justice is heading under this administration.

War crimes.

I don't consider the moonie times to be a reliable source for information. That said, it appears the Bush team didn't file their papers properly. Why doesn't that surprise me?

 You said you don't consider the Mooney paper a reliable source, yet you commented on the charges being dropped. What was your source of information and perhaps you could explain why this news wasn't noted in the MSM?