The House voted 410-4 on Wednesday to pass legislation to designate lynching as a federal hate crime.

Why it matters: Congress has tried and failed for over 100 years to pass measures to make lynching a federal crime.

Independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) and three Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Ted Yoho (Fla.) and Louie Gohmert (Texas) — voted against the bill.
Yoho told CNN's Manu Raju that the bill was "an overreach of the federal government" that tramples on states' rights


I can’t believe this is new today and has not been on the books for years.4 voted against it? There must be a mistake.

I had already decided to vote against Gohmert but this has cinched it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2020 07:46PM by samintx.

oh, I so hope McConnell refuses to bring it to the senate. That would drive a nail in a few coffins

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

Federalizing a crime is a mixed blessing these days, since it also puts the crime within range of Trump's pardon power.

Who in their right minds would vote against a bill that makes lynching a Federal crime?
Oh, they're Republicans and one independent who was a Republican until last year.

What a transition for the GOP over the course of 160 years: From pro-abolition to pro-lynching.

Interestingly, the ways a murder can become a federal crime are rather limited. Crossing state lines/interstate commerce or murdering someone with a federal role seem to be the main lines of reasoning. The courts might have to make a call on this one some day. i wonder if the Republicans are expecting a stacked judiciary to nullify this.

[www.wklaw.com]

1. Murder of an Elected/Appointed Federal Official (18 U.S.C. Section 351, 1751)
2. Murder of a Federal Judge or Law Enforcement Official (18 U.S.C. Section 1114)
3. Killing of an Immediate Family Member of Law Enforcement Officials (18 U.S.C. Section 115(b)(3))
4. A Killing Designed to Influence the Outcome of a Court Case (18 U.S.C. Section 1512)
5. A Killing Committed During Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. Section 1111)
6. Murder Related to Rape, Child Molestation, and Sexual Exploitation of Children (18 U.S.C. Section 2248, 2251)
7. Murder Aboard a Ship (18 U.S.C. Section 2280)
8. Drug-Related Murders (18 U.S.C. Section 36, 924(i))
9. Murder for Hire (18 U.S.C. Section 1958)
10. Murder by Mail (18 U.S.C. Section 1716)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2020 09:02AM by Acer.

Quote
S. Pupp
Who in their right minds would vote against a bill that makes lynching a Federal crime?
Oh, they're Republicans and one independent who was a Republican until last year.

What a transition for the GOP over the course of 160 years: From pro-abolition to pro-lynching.

Purists. Give no quarter to your opposition. State's righters unless the state opposes their viewpoints of course.

Who in their right minds would vote against a bill that makes lynching a Federal crime?

People who understand our Constitution.

It's a system of dual sovereignties. Murder, mob action, assault, battery—all are state crimes. Where in Article I Section Eight is Congress given a general police power—no matter how revolting or unpopular the crime is?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2020 12:18PM by Mr Downtown.

Quote
Mr Downtown
Who in their right minds would vote against a bill that makes lynching a Federal crime?

People who understand our Constitution.

It's a system of dual sovereignties. Murder, mob action, assault, battery—all are state crimes. Where in Article I Section Eight is Congress given a general police power—no matter how revolting or unpopular the crime is?

Our Constitution did a great job of enshrining the practice of slavery for almost a hundred years. I understand that.

Depriving a person of their constitutional rights at the state level can absolutely be a federal crime. It's quite well established in the law, and in the courts. Does your opinion trump the modern federal judiciary? Should we strike all federal civil rights protections at the state level? Sounds like an opinion the current administration would embrace...

Nothing is a more complete deprivation of someone's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - under the putative equal protection of the law without regard to race - than to be lynched.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs
Depriving a person of their constitutional rights at the state level can absolutely be a federal crime.

Not unless it is done by the state, or "under color of state law." You might want to reread The Slaughter-House Cases.

Quote

Should we strike all federal civil rights protections at the state level?

The ones concerning public accommodation? As we know from Heart of Atlanta Motel and Daniel v. Paul, even if it's a bit of a stretch, those fall within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. But we also know from Lopez and Morrison that the Commerce Clause can't be stretched to regulate violence or murder.

Quote

Nothing is a more complete deprivation of someone's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - under the putative equal protection of the law without regard to race - than to be lynched.

I'm not sure what "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" (a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution) has to do with anything. If someone sets out to murder someone just because of their race, surely you don't think either their motive—or the tragic result—makes it a federal crime.

Quote
Mr Downtown
People who understand our Constitution.

Yes. I am sure it is their dear love for the Constitution that drives them.

I wonder if any of them have read the emoluments clause?

Quote
Mr Downtown
Who in their right minds would vote against a bill that makes lynching a Federal crime?

People who understand our Constitution.

It's a system of dual sovereignties. Murder, mob action, assault, battery—all are state crimes. Where in Article I Section Eight is Congress given a general police power—no matter how revolting or unpopular the crime is?

Lynching is certainly a loss of due process, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a fair trial, among other things, so the Fourteenth Amendment ought to sew this one up pretty tight. I suppose that a really dedicated sophist could argue that lynching is not always intended to be the punishment for a crime, but is merely a hate crime by itself, and so all those Constitutional rights stemming from the Bill of Rights don't count. With that argument, I would throw in the 8th Amendment and, just to add levity to the argument, the second Amendment as a right of the person being murdered. QED

But what's missing in lynching is state action. Per The Slaughter-House Cases, that's the only thing controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment. I as a person can deny you your constitutional rights, or even your life or liberty—and there's simply no federal remedy.

Well, I guess if Mr Downtown wanted to make the argument that the U.S. Constitution is a racist document, mission accomplished.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

How is it racist for murder or kidnapping to be a state law rather than a federal law?

Quote
Mr Downtown
How is it racist for murder or kidnapping to be a state law rather than a federal law?

Simple - because in states that do not protect their citizens from racist murders (read: lynchings), nor prosecute the perpetrators, your Constitution leaves victims without any legal remedy.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Has 42 U.S.C. § 1983 been repealed?

Quote
rjmacs
Simple - because in states that do not protect their citizens from racist murders (read: lynchings), nor prosecute the perpetrators, your Constitution leaves victims without any legal remedy.

See also for example where that ol' Constitution may have been found wanting with regards to state politics..

Quote

The New Orleans Massacre of 1866 occurred on July 30, during a violent conflict as white Democrats, including police and firemen, attacked Republicans, most of them black, parading outside the Mechanics Institute in New Orleans. ...There were a total of 150 black casualties, including 44 killed...

The riots catalyzed support for the Fourteenth Amendment, extending suffrage and full citizenship to freedmen, and the Reconstruction Act, to establish military districts for the national government to oversee areas of the South and work to change their social arrangements.

Quote

Has 42 U.S.C. § 1983 been repealed?

In this era of unbridled qualified immunity for law enforcement, do you think civil anything will control the power state and local folks. Think Joe Arpaio.

Quote
Mr Downtown
Has 42 U.S.C. § 1983 been repealed?

You are quite right. That statute gives the lynching victim (or more likely, a surviving family member), the legal right to sue the state government for non-monetary claims in civil court.

I misspoke. I ought to have said:

In states that do not protect their citizens from racist murders (read: lynchings), nor prosecute the perpetrators, your Constitution leaves victims without any path to criminal justice. Citizens who lynch others can do so with impunity, with no fear of criminal penalty. I still call that racist.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future