[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And in the words of the actually bill in question:

"(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice."

Yes. This has been established via statutory law since the Civil Rights Acts. The Fed. gov't has an interest in making sure that states in protecting the rights of its citizens.

I used double jeopardy as in a descriptive way. Look at this situation: the State has a law against murder and a guy is tried and found not guilty. The Fed has a law against murder and the guy is tried for the same crime, using the same evidence and convicted. Am I wrong in describing this a double jeopardy?

Yes. Because that isn't the legal definition of what double jeopardy is.

It sure resembles double jeopardy very closely even though that technically, from a legal perspective, it is not double jeopardy.

Then you're using a definition it doesn't have. That's like saying "When I say 'horse,' what I really mean is vehicle that flies me to Mars and back."

A simple reading says that is exactly what is happening when tried for the same crime in the State and Federal courts even if there is an exception that deals with sovereignty.

That's an extreme oversimplification of what the statute allows. It's not just that the state verdict isn't liked by the Feds, it has to be demonstrated that the verdict demonstrably (which means its the Fed's responsibility to demonstrate) doesn't do what the Federal law intends it to do.

For example, let's say a gay man is assaulted and murdered by GodHatesFags-ites. And lets say that the prosecutor simply doesn't prosecute the perpetrator on the basis that the victim was gay, or that the jury is presented with overwhelming evidence of the perpretrators guilt and the verdict is returned as 'not guilty' because the victim was gay, or that the sentance is so lenient as to be nonsensical. That's what is being protected by C and D .

The point is that I don't think that it is right to be tried twice for a crime because of this particular loophole.

Its not a loophole... It's the law. The law specifically excludes being tried in State and Federal court for the same offense is not double jeopardy. You can't claim state sovereignty and then claim Federal and State courts are the same thing. Either they're separate or they're not. If they're separate, then dbl jeopardy doesn't apply. if they're together, then you can't claim state sovereignty.

For the Feds to say that they don't like the State courts ruling, so they are going to try this person again for the exact same thing is an abuse of power and an affront to State sovereignty.

Well, that isn't what the law provides for, so I don't know why you keep saying that it does. And State sovereignty doesn't mean what you want it to in this paragraph. States have a responsibility, ever since the 14th amendment (and arguably, before then) to protect the Federal rights of its citizens. And if they're not going to do it, the federal gov't has an interest in seeing that they do. State sovereignty doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. They can't raise an army or negotiate treaties with foreign powers. In most definitions that makes them 'not sovereign.' The Federal system gives a certain degree of sovereignty to the states; but not a sovereign power that can nullify or disregard federal interest and authority.

[tlj009]

Yes. This has been established via statutory law since the Civil Rights Acts. The Fed. gov't has an interest in making sure that states in protecting the rights of its citizens.

Post a link. From what I can figure out, the dual sovereignty issue was established by a judge around 1922. Also know that this bill has been opposed by the US Commission on Civil Rights for this very same reason.

Yes. Because that isn't the legal definition of what double jeopardy is.

And the fact that I specifically said that I wasn't using the legal definition went right over your head? Your objection is noted and I will still you use the term "double jeopardy" in this capacity because I find that two word term simple and descriptive of this circumstance.

Then you're using a definition it doesn't have. That's like saying "When I say 'horse,' what I really mean is vehicle that flies me to Mars and back."

Please give me the definition. I was under the impression that it was a concept rather than a defined term. But since it arises from the 5th amendment, I assume that it is mentioned specifically and defined in that amendment. So please post the definition.

That's an extreme oversimplification of what the statute allows. It's not just that the state verdict isn't liked by the Feds, it has to be demonstrated that the verdict demonstrably (which means its the Fed's responsibility to demonstrate) doesn't do what the Federal law intends it to do.

For example, let's say a gay man is assaulted and murdered by GodHatesFags-ites. And lets say that the prosecutor simply doesn't prosecute the perpetrator on the basis that the victim was gay, or that the jury is presented with overwhelming evidence of the perpretrators guilt and the verdict is returned as 'not guilty' because the victim was gay, or that the sentance is so lenient as to be nonsensical. That's what is being protected by C and D .

Post a link.

And still it is nothing but an affront to State Rights, which I have already said was part of my issue with it.

Its not a loophole... It's the law. The law specifically excludes being tried in State and Federal court for the same offense is not double jeopardy. You can't claim state sovereignty and then claim Federal and State courts are the same thing. Either they're separate or they're not. If they're separate, then dbl jeopardy doesn't apply. if they're together, then you can't claim state sovereignty.

I never said that the Federal and State courts were the same thing. I said that the person is being tried for the same thing. That is what I am describing as being basically "double jeopardy". And I do tend to see exceptions to a law as a loophole.

Well, that isn't what the law provides for, so I don't know why you keep saying that it does. And State sovereignty doesn't mean what you want it to in this paragraph. States have a responsibility, ever since the 14th amendment (and arguably, before then) to protect the Federal rights of its citizens. And if they're not going to do it, the federal gov't has an interest in seeing that they do. State sovereignty doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. They can't raise an army or negotiate treaties with foreign powers. In most definitions that makes them 'not sovereign.' The Federal system gives a certain degree of sovereignty to the states; but not a sovereign power that can nullify or disregard federal interest and authority.

The States have powers and the Feds have powers. The Feds are taking yet another power with this law. So according to you, the States have no sovereignty at all and the Feds are completely sovereign. I was under the impression that the States were sovereign over their individual responsibilities and the Federal gov. was sovereign over its responsibilities. Dual sovereignty. And the Federal government didn't give a certain degree of sovereignty to the States. The States gave specific responsibilities to the Federal government. Since then, the feds have steadily taken more and more power from the States.

[Ridley's Own]

So let me see if I can get this straight...

You say this statute violates the protection against double jeopardy in the 5th amendment. I say, that it doesn't, based on both statutory and common law principles. You reply, saying that may be so, but under my Very Special Definition of Double Jeopardy that isn't shared by any legal professional, let alone the courts of the 50 states or the US Courts, the protection of gays under hate crimes law is unconstitutional.

You say that this protection of gay citizens means that the US Dept of Justice can retry someone whenever the Federal government doesn't like the verdict. I say, citing the statute itself, and the requirement that the gov't demonstrate that the state did not meet the federal gov'ts interest in eliminating violent crime caused by hatred. You ask me to post a link to something you've already posted.

You say that this violates 'states rights.' I argue that states don't have the right to not protect their citizenry, and that the Federal gov't has an interest in protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States, including taking a stand against states that do not protect the rights of the citizenry. You repeat your claim without interacting with my replay.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do at this point.

The States have powers and the Feds have powers. The Feds are taking yet another power with this law.

They're not 'taking' anything. They're enforcing the protection of civil rights from a state that refuses to do so. If the Federal government is not going to protect the rights of its citizens against a state in the union that chooses not to, then why does it exist at all? In your way of viewing things, it is 'taking yet another power' for the federal government to execute Tim McVeigh for murdering 8 federal employees in the OK City bombing. After all, doesn't OK have the 'states rights' to decide whether to prosecute McVeigh? Or that we should still have segregated seating in busses, since it's wrong of the Federal gov't to interject its power into a 'sovereign state' and end segregation.

At what point, in your frame of reference, is it appropriate for the Federal gov't to protect the rights of its citizens?

So according to you, the States have no sovereignty at all and the Feds are completely sovereign.

No.

I was under the impression that the States were sovereign over their individual responsibilities and the Federal gov. was sovereign over its responsibilities. Dual sovereignty.

Nope. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that every other law, whether made by federal, state or local government, accedes or must be in accordance with the Constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that state and federal governments are co-equal or 'dual sovereigns.'

And the Federal government didn't give a certain degree of sovereignty to the States. The States gave specific responsibilities to the Federal government. Since then, the feds have steadily taken more and more power from the States.

That's 'compact' theory, and its been discredited for a very long time. Mostly since the nullification crises of the 1800s and, I dunno, Appamatox and the 14th Amendment.

I'm going to give you a caution here, because I hope you understand that the train of fevered logic you're using here is the same logic and bad constitutional arguments that the traitors in the Confederacy and the segregationists in the south argued to prevent citizens of the United States from having access to the rights that the Constitution gives them. This is bad company for you to be in. There is a reason your arguments have been routinely rejected by Supreme Courts past and present.

[tlj009]

So let me see if I can get this straight...

You say this statute violates the protection against double jeopardy in the 5th amendment. I say, that it doesn't, based on both statutory and common law principles. You reply, saying that may be so, but under my Very Special Definition of Double Jeopardy that isn't shared by any legal professional, let alone the courts of the 50 states or the US Courts, the protection of gays under hate crimes law is unconstitutional.

No. I said that it is the same a double jeopardy in practice. I repeated several times that it isn't double jeopardy legally. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional.

You say that this protection of gay citizens means that the US Dept of Justice can retry someone whenever the Federal government doesn't like the verdict. I say, citing the statute itself, and the requirement that the gov't demonstrate that the state did not meet the federal gov'ts interest in eliminating violent crime caused by hatred. You ask me to post a link to something you've already posted.

No. I say that this particular piece of the statute allows the Federal government to retry someone if they don't like the verdict. You cited a statutory law at the time of the Civil Rights Act. I asked you to cite it. But if you are going to use my post, then you don't have to cite anything.

As for the government demonstrating that a State verdict didn't meet the Fed's requirement of "left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.", that sounds really subjective to me. What exactly is "substantial justice" after all.

You say that this violates 'states rights.' I argue that states don't have the right to not protect their citizenry, and that the Federal gov't has an interest in protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States, including taking a stand against states that do not protect the rights of the citizenry. You repeat your claim without interacting with my replay.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do at this point.

Sure, the Federal Gov't has the right ... at least to a certain extent. But who prosecutes the murder of a citizen of the State. The Fed prosecutes murders of federal employees. The reason is that was a power left up to the States. A power that the Feds have decided to take. Even with the Jim Crow Laws, an Amendment to the Constitution was violated. And yet this law is allowing the Fed's to overrule the States with a law instead of an Amendment.

They're not 'taking' anything. They're enforcing the protection of civil rights from a state that refuses to do so. If the Federal government is not going to protect the rights of its citizens against a state in the union that chooses not to, then why does it exist at all? In your way of viewing things, it is 'taking yet another power' for the federal government to execute Tim McVeigh for murdering 8 federal employees in the OK City bombing. After all, doesn't OK have the 'states rights' to decide whether to prosecute McVeigh? Or that we should still have segregated seating in busses, since it's wrong of the Federal gov't to interject its power into a 'sovereign state' and end segregation.

At what point, in your frame of reference, is it appropriate for the Federal gov't to protect the rights of its citizens?

When it is in the enumerated powers given by the Constitution. And Tim McVeigh was convicted and executed for murdering 8 Federal employees. The Fed couldn't, however, try McVeigh for the 160 citizens of Oklahoma that he killed. And since he was sentenced to death, Oklahoma never pursued the charges. Let me say that again. The it was out of the Federal Governments power to pursue the 160 counts of murder because they were private citizens. Tim McVeigh really supports my point and not yours.

Nope. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that every other law, whether made by federal, state or local government, accedes or must be in accordance with the Constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that state and federal governments are co-equal or 'dual sovereigns.'

Sure it does. The Supremacy Clause applies to enumerated powers. Not just to whatever the Federal Government passes. It took an amendment to the constitution to protect against racial discrimination. As to sovereignty:

States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Supreme Court's University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)[15] and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)[16] decisions allowed states to use a rational basis review for discrimination against the aged and disabled, arguing that these types of discrimination were rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and that no "razorlike precision" was needed." The Supreme Court's United States v. Morrison (2000)[17] decision limited the ability of rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that "States historically have been sovereign" in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court's opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment."

That's 'compact' theory, and its been discredited for a very long time. Mostly since the nullification crises of the 1800s and, I dunno, Appamatox and the 14th Amendment.

I'm going to give you a caution here, because I hope you understand that the train of fevered logic you're using here is the same logic and bad constitutional arguments that the traitors in the Confederacy and the segregationists in the south argued to prevent citizens of the United States from having access to the rights that the Constitution gives them. This is bad company for you to be in. There is a reason your arguments have been routinely rejected by Supreme Courts past and present.

I am going to say this once, don't start a Civil War on this forum. It may be time for me to step out of this conversation if this is the route that you are taking.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Sure it does. The Supremacy Clause applies to enumerated powers. Not just to whatever the Federal Government passes. It took an amendment to the constitution to protect against racial discrimination. As to sovereignty:

States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like drug laws?