Libertarian Fail

Morer?

 

The House passed an anti-lynching bill 410-4. Justin Amash was one of the 4.

 

Yeap. Unconscionable.

 

I dunno.

My understanding is that it was a bill to define lynchings as federal crimes, and AFAIK they already were, and the FBI pretty good at working them already.

I may be ignorant here, but it seems to me like one of those window dressing bills that may actually make life harder on those working against the phenomenon. Have we been experiencing a raft of lynching's that have been going uninvestigated and unpunished?

 

C'mon - we know why. Government overreach and States' Rights!

Republicans accused the legislation of being an overreach by the federal government and encroaching on states' rights. The legislation, if enacted, would add lynching to the list of current criminal civil rights violations.

"The Constitution specifies only a handful of federal crimes and leaves the rest to individual states to prosecute," Massie told Newsweek in a statement. "In addition, this bill expands current federal 'hate crime' laws. A crime is a crime, and all victims deserve equal justice. Adding enhanced penalties for 'hate' tends to endanger other liberties, such as freedom of speech."

Although Yoho said he'll continue to condemn the "horrific act of lynching" and advocate for perpetrators to receive the "harshest penalty under the law," the retiring congressman also felt the text took away too much power from states and was redundant.

https://www.newsweek.com/four-feder...aw-lynching-cite-government-overreach-1489313

 

You're trying too hard. He's a libertarian.

 

It is either there or not....If there is a new law to define it as such, it is likely not there. In any case, that was a shitty move.

 

But the resultant murder or attempted murder is though, isn't it?

 

Federal crime? well it seems that it is not, and it will continue to not be if the Senate does not take up the bill.

Not all murders are federal crimes.

https://www.wklaw.com/10-ways-murder-becomes-a-federal-crime/


Think about it like the EU, if you were a French citizen and you murder someone in France, who gets to put you on trial? the French government (at what ever level) of the EU government?

 

The Soros Supreme Court of World Lib'rulism, of course.

 

Yeah, I suppose.

I'm just not clear what difference the method of murder makes.

Well, asking for confirmation I suppose.

I assumed if somebody is killed then the state, at some level, has to charge them with it. What difference does it make whether it's by hanging, gunshot, knife or any other method.

Anyway, whatever!

 

Byron de la Beckwith says hi from hell.

 

Yeah, I get that aspect, (although I'd appreciate it if you just made a statement rather than asking a rhetorical question), but unless murder wasn't illegal in a state how does this make any difference?

But with reference to your point about the historical context, I could have seen the point in doing it in the past but, now?

I wouldn't go as far as calling it window dressing, (not least because I think signalling the complete rejection of of hate speech and action is very important), but, in some ways, it seems an odd time to be passing this sort of law, tbh.

But, obviously, everyone should have voted to pass it ad the few oddballs who didn't deserve all the shit I'm guessing they'll be getting.

 

Well, keep in mind the distinction between state and feds is real and sometimes meaningful.

The feds have been known to prosecute things the locals don't care about at all. Or approve of. And in the current climate there's apt to be new Sheriff Arpaios springing up here and there and anywhere.

 

Yes, that is the context in which this makes sense -- the Mississippi Burning situation.

 

It was basically ceremonial. But I read it took over 100 years for Congress to make it a federal crime. So for many decades it was a pressing issue (or not, if you were a States Rights-er) in the US that wasn't addressed. How these 4 fvckwads could still vote against it is even more mind-boggling then

 

Who reared them? Who voted for them?

Find the answers and it won't be mind-boggling at all.

 

Whaddaya mean? Racism is OVER! We elected a Black president, remember?

Oh, well, maybe racism was over...

 

Rand Paul voted against the coronavirus bill

 

I'm sure he wants to let the market decide who lives and who dies.