Print
E-mail
US Sued Over Hate Crimes Act
 |
| The Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, challenging the constitutionality of the federal Hate Crimes Act. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press) |
By - Staff Report
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act. The Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and, thus, elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former county prosecutor, commented, “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area.”
Mr. Thompson continued, “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election.”
The Hate Crimes Act, cited as the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act,” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophilia from protection under the act was defeated by a majority of Democrats.
The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the federal hate crimes law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,” thereby expanding “the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.”
Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others.’ And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
Under a related federal criminal statute, anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense under the new hate crimes law is liable as if the person committed the violent crime.
In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was defeated.
In addition to the First and Fifth Amendment claims, the lawsuit also claims that Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution to enact the hate crimes law because it is “legislation that purports to suppress violent crime and vindicate its victims,” and “[t]here is no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied Congress and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its victims.” Reports by the FBI in 2007 and 2008 indicate that only a fraction of 1 percent of all violent crimes committed in the United States each year are “bias” motivated on account of the victim’s sexual orientation.
In fact, Eric Holder, a supporter of the new federal law, was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch in a hearing whether there was any evidence of a trend that “hate crimes” were going unpunished at the State level. Mr. Holder stated without reservation that there was no such evidence and that, in fact, States were, by and large, doing a fine job in this area. Consequently, as the lawsuit alleges, there is no national problem associated with “bias” motivated crimes on account of the victim’s “sexual orientation” to warrant federal involvement.
To garner enough votes for passage, the politically-divisive “hate crimes” law had to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, even though the law is non-germane and non-related to defense. Senator John McCain stated in the Senate Congressional Record, “It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.”
As Congressman Todd Akin noted, special prosecutions for so-called “hate crimes” are inherently divisive. Congressman Akin stated in the House Congressional Record, “[This new hate crimes law] increases hatred in America. . . . The law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice, . . . Lady Justice does not notice. [The new hate crimes law] violates that basic principle. It creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it creates hatred.”
Through this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek judicial reassurance by way of declaratory and injunctive relief that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former county prosecutor, commented, “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area.”
Mr. Thompson continued, “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election.”
The Hate Crimes Act, cited as the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act,” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophilia from protection under the act was defeated by a majority of Democrats.
The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the federal hate crimes law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,” thereby expanding “the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.”
Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others.’ And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
Under a related federal criminal statute, anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense under the new hate crimes law is liable as if the person committed the violent crime.
In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was defeated.
In addition to the First and Fifth Amendment claims, the lawsuit also claims that Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution to enact the hate crimes law because it is “legislation that purports to suppress violent crime and vindicate its victims,” and “[t]here is no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied Congress and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its victims.” Reports by the FBI in 2007 and 2008 indicate that only a fraction of 1 percent of all violent crimes committed in the United States each year are “bias” motivated on account of the victim’s sexual orientation.
In fact, Eric Holder, a supporter of the new federal law, was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch in a hearing whether there was any evidence of a trend that “hate crimes” were going unpunished at the State level. Mr. Holder stated without reservation that there was no such evidence and that, in fact, States were, by and large, doing a fine job in this area. Consequently, as the lawsuit alleges, there is no national problem associated with “bias” motivated crimes on account of the victim’s “sexual orientation” to warrant federal involvement.
To garner enough votes for passage, the politically-divisive “hate crimes” law had to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, even though the law is non-germane and non-related to defense. Senator John McCain stated in the Senate Congressional Record, “It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.”
As Congressman Todd Akin noted, special prosecutions for so-called “hate crimes” are inherently divisive. Congressman Akin stated in the House Congressional Record, “[This new hate crimes law] increases hatred in America. . . . The law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice, . . . Lady Justice does not notice. [The new hate crimes law] violates that basic principle. It creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it creates hatred.”
Through this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek judicial reassurance by way of declaratory and injunctive relief that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs.
 |
||
| Crisis In Catholic Higher Education: New Study |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
