Mr. Price's attorneys argued that the abuser fees violated the equal-protection clauses of the Constitution because Mr. Price would not have faced the additional fee if he were from out of state. The decisions appear to be the first of their kind. The Washington Times earlier this week reported that officials in four other states with similar laws were not aware of any equal-protection challenges against singling out in-state drivers.Are "hate-crimes" and "hate-speech" laws, by their very nature and intent of making the "group de jour" more protected than others, unconstitutional under the equal protection clauses (Amendment 14, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution?
Conservative Beach Girl is speech protected in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" - Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1949. Our representative republic based on our U.S. Constitution has many wolves slashing at our heels and hearts. Enemies within and enemies without; we must take them at their word, even as they dissemble at every turn to advance their cause to destroy our way of life and end our freedoms.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Are "hate-crimes" laws unconstitutional?
I was just reading an article in the Washington Times by Seth McLaughlin, Second court bars Virginia fee.
And I read the following several sentences which got me to thinking.
2 comments:
Guidelines for comments:
1) Civil: no name calling, no gratuitous insults, no denigration of someone's intelligence, etc.
2) Temperance: absolutely no exhortations to commit violence or foment insurrection.
3) On topic: I appreciate links to other bloggers' posts.
4) Comments are for readers to share their ideas with each other.
From Crusader Rabbit, this is not a platform for leftist tripe.
Just getting acquainted! I'm new at the herd (see bloggregator: The Lighthouse). Now are you?
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question, I'm from Eurabia, so I wouldn't know the finer points of US law. But according to Stephen Hicks of the Objctivist Center, the mechanics of the 'redistribution' of speech works the same as affirmative action. I.e. groups belonging to the white, Christian, rich, male litany are allowed less free speech and are given handicaps (hate speech issues) relative to weak minorities who are favoured. It's institutionalized inequality, evidently. Would that qualify for unconstitutional? See my post yesterday: http://millennium-notes.blogspot.com/2007/08/marxist-revival-4.html
Welcome to the pack! Yes, as you described that would qualify for unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is the rich elites will be over-run when there is no longer a middle class to elect them or to buy their products.
I'll check out your post. If you have not introduced yourself over at The Gates of Vienna, please do so.
Gates of Vienna