Yesterday, Americablog pointed out the hypocrisy and stupidity of Lamar Smith (R-TX), who rose to ask that the hate crimes legislation, HR 1592 (.pdf), be amended to include protections for the elderly and those in the military and law enforcement. When his request was met with an acceptable response to amend and include the language, Smith refused. Here is the official Congressional record H4449 to H4452 (all bold is mine):
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SNYDER). All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.Look at that bullshit. This guy pretends to actually want to include the language, but when his request is accomodated by an instantaneous decision to amend the language, rather than sending it back to committee, he balks. Why? Because it wasn't about protecting the elderly or the military at all. It was about, instead, sending it back to committee to kill the bill. What a lying piece of shit. The Congress will soon be taking a break, and this turd from Texas wants the bill sent back to committee for just that reason -- to kill it for months.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF TEXAS
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1592 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with the following amendments:
Page 12, line 5, after ‘‘orientation,’’ insert ‘‘status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces,’’.
Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America’s senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces. My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups. We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished. The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year. We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.
These are horrible crimes that strikefear into the hearts of America’s senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next. This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda.
With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act. If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel? Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. SMITH, would he yield for a unanimous consent request that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after ‘‘orientation’’ insert ‘‘status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed services.’’ Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. SMITH, the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent request that the motion be amended by striking the word ‘‘promptly’’ and inserting the word ‘‘forthwith?’’
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield for that purpose.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRYThe preceding clarified exactly what Lamar was trying to do, as does the following, in which Conyers and Hoyer call Lamar on his bullshit political game.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House ‘‘promptly’’ rather than reported back ‘‘forthwith.’’ Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word ‘‘promptly’’ is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back ‘‘promptly’’ sends the back bill back to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would
not be immediately before the House. Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the Congress...Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), the distinguished majority leader.At this point, the motion to recommit the bill (send it back to committee) was rejected and the bill was subsequently passed, without the amended language for the elderly or the military, because of Lamar Smith himself. So if someone wants to throw that bullshit at you regarding how the bill's protections were not expanded because of Democrats, then you throw the facts right back.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman. This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior citizens. He asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas objected, so it was not added. Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ‘‘forthwith’’ for ‘‘promptly’’ so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the gentleman from Texas objected. How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed. My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The American public knows it is a political game. Let’s reject this cynical political game and pass this legislation.
Now, with respect to Bush's veto, most people think the federalism/anti-federalism stances are a smokescreen for his real objective -- bowing to the pressure of the bigots in the last vestige of a support base he has left -- the troglodytes of the Religious Right. They claim, over and over again, that this bill will stifle their right to hate fags and preach discrimination. But it won't, and the language of the bill itself makes that clear:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.1) This only applies to an "act of violence" -- NOT speech or expression.
In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2) Section 8 clarifies that the act does not and cannot infringe upon 1st Amendment protections.
Thus, demagoguery and stupidity are to blame for things like this:
Both the house and senate versions of the bill are a direct affront to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and if by some remote chance they should become a permanent part of the law they will surely undergo challenges in the Supreme Court about their obviously suspect constitutionality.And this:
The Hate Crimes Bill is a means of squashing the rights of preachers, gospel witnesses, youth workers, journalists, and every ordinary citizen to quote or explain to others what the Bible says about homosexuality.
I don't want to come at this from the perspective of analyzing federalism -- which is one stated perspective espoused by those opposed to federal hate crimes legislation. That is, I don't want to analyze whether or not a federalist or anti-federalist position is more constitutionally correct. What I want to do is see if, upon analysis, the stated justification for Bush's promised veto -- fear of over-reaching federalism -- stands up to scrutiny for logical consistency (it doesn't). If that is indeed the case, all federal regulations of otherwise-state-controlled laws would be opposed on principle.Many conservative Christian groups, such as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America (CWA), called the bill unconstitutional.
"Hate-crimes legislation is constitutionally dubious on its face," said Matt Barber, CWA's policy director for cultural issues. "[H.R. 1592] flies in the face of the 14th amendment. It clearly sets up a two-tiered justice system with a first class of victims and a second class of victims. This bill provides unequal protection under the law."
Barber contends that sexual orientation and gender identity, like religion, describe a set of behaviors and should not be specially protected. The other identities protected under current federal hate-crimes law —race, color, and national origin—are non-behavioral characteristics.
Many Christians worry the House legislation could "lead to serious infringements of our First Amendment freedom of speech protections in the United States," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Barber warned that the bill would mean that "any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle would be against the law. If a pastor or a speaker were to speak out against homosexuality and it were to incite someone to act out violently, then that [pastor] would be tried as a principal."
The problem is, as has been pointed out, that the president and the Congress apparently support the idea of labeling certain violent acts "hate crimes" when they involve race and religion. If that is indeed the case, then they are lying through their teeth about their legal justification. One cannot simultaneously claim an anti-federalist constitutional position against hate crime protections for gay people while claiming a federalist constitutional position for hate crime protections for Jews or blacks. But this is par for the course for Bushco, and for his pinbrained supporters on this issue.
I don't normally level sweeping insults against everyone on some particular issue X even when we disagree, because I think it is possible to have an intelligent argument, in most cases, for both sides of issue X. However, anyone and everyone who support hate crimes for race and religion but oppose hate crimes for sexual preference and identity are, simply, all stupid people, who either don't notice such inconsistencies, or who are blinded by their own bigotry and religious prejudices.
During yesterday's press briefing, Perino got nailed on this inconsistency:
Q Why does the President oppose broadening the hate crimes law to cover gays and lesbians?One doesn't need to be a lawyer, Ms. Perino, to see the bullshit for what it is.
MS. PERINO: I think the President -- the statement of administration policy that we put out was very clear, in that the opposition goes more to a federalism issue. The President believes that every single person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, that violence against anyone is unacceptable and abhorrent. So I think I would encourage you to look at the statement of administration policy that says that we would oppose it solely on the grounds that it would federalize law enforcement of crimes already being addressed in the states.
Q But he found it necessary, if you will, to take specific action when people are attacked because of race, and this is another attack on a person because of a characteristic, and not something the person is doing. You have a segment of the population that you decided needed protecting, and not this one, at least not federally?
MS. PERINO: As I understand it, the state laws address these issues in terms of all acts of violence covered all people. And so I think that the President is going to leave it in the states' hands. And that's what he said.
Q So why should there be a special case for black people then?
MS. PERINO: I'm not a lawyer. All I know is what we said in our statement of administration policy. I take your point. I'll see if I can get you some more on it.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
