Might As Well Call It the Michael Jackson Act

Bills currently (as of the last full week of June) are making their way through the House and Senate that would create federal protection under hate crime statutes for pedophiles. It was originally intended to bring homosexuals under the 1994 act protecting different races and religions, but liberal congressmen and women have included language that protects 547 different kinds of sexual behaviors including incest and pedophilia.

That means that if Mr. Smith finds out that his son was molested by a sexual predator and he hits him with a Louisville Slugger, he will be subject to assault and battery under his state laws and federal hate crimes prosecution as well. He might spend more time in prison than the sex offender.

Republican attempts to specifically exempt incest, pedophilia, and other acts not involving two consenting adults were rebuffed by Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and other House Democrats. Even specific child protection language was stricken from the proposed bill.

Luckily the bill could run into a filibuster conducted by Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats. As it is, the law is flawed.

Hate crimes legislation, quite honestly, is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. We need to stop looking into the psychology of the criminal act so much and simply punish all violent crimes to a strong extent. The identity of the victim should not be written into a statute as some kind of required factor in sentencing or prosecution. Federal hate crimes prosecutions after the fact of a state prosecution of a violent crime is an end run around the "double jeopardy" clause in the Constitution.

It is interesting that liberal Democrats have seen fit to put simple, regular homosexuality on the same legal level as pedophilia, incest, or some of the other listed behaviors such as zoophilia, and stuff you wouldn't really want to consider. I imagine that a lot of homosexuals would be deeply offended by this stunt of adding incest and pedophilia to their protection bill.

Hate Crimes and the Constitution

Congress just passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. It expands the definition of hate crimes to include gays and related groups, but created fears that speech against such groups could now qualify as a crime.

Factcheck.org disputes the argument that this act will result in the prosecution of those simply speaking.

The problem lies in the notion of "hate crimes" itself. Way back in the good ol' days, the law responded simply to an act that really occurred. If I pulled out a 2x4 and hit somebody over the head with it, I'd be prosecuted for battery regardless of the victim's gender, race, sexual orientation, or whatever. The law also assumed that I might have some negative feelings, perhaps even hate, for the person that I just smacked in the head. Prosecutors and judges did not need to read my mind to figure out my motivation. I hit the guy. Mitigating circumstances or self-defense might come into play, but the state did not need to discern my personal feelings.

Hate crimes laws require the court to get inside the heads of criminals to figure out whether or not they have some prejudice that might have come into play. If one is found, extra harsh sentencing may be applied.

A man may "hate" an individual that he catches in a hotel room with his wife and beat him to a bloody pulp. A person may "hate" those of a different race or sexual orientation and do the same. In either case the law says that the aggressor is in the wrong if he or she is not facing a threat to their own person. Why should one victim of violent crime be granted a certain status and entitlement to a higher level of legal deterrence?

Sociologists might be able to come up with arguments that demonstrate a valid case for hate crimes. However, the Constitution says otherwise. All United States citizens are entitled to "equal protection under the laws," nothing more, nothing less. Applying harsher penalties dependent upon who the victim is could theoretically mean that a person would feel more deterred from beating up an individual enjoying a protected status more than just anyone else on the street. That does not meet 14th Amendment standards.

No one should be beaten or killed because of their lifestyle or the way God made them (unless the lifestyle or the way God made them leads them to harm others) but hate crimes statutes simply are not constitutional.

One man, one vote, not in West Virginia

Kanawha County is the most populous county in the state with 200,073 persons as recorded by the 2000 census, but has an unfair advantage in state government. Not because of its population, but because of multi-delegate districts where each citizen gets to vote for two state Senators and in some cases seven house members, whereas most of the state gets to vote for only one senator and one delegate each election cycle. The citizens of Kanawha County, and some other counties to a lesser extent, have more representation in the legislature than most.

Most citizens of the state are only represented by two state Senators and one House member, if you live in Charleston you are represented by four state senators and seven house members. This puts the citizens in most other parts of the state at a disadvantage when requesting help from their state Senators and Representatives, when compared those living in Multi-delegate districts.

Why is this bad? Consider something simple. You live in a single delegate district like most of us and you want a pot hole fixed on the state highway near your home. You can call on two senators and one delegate to push the Department of Highways to make the repair. Now if you live the Kanawha County’s 30^th Delegate district, then you have a distinct advantage to get your pot hole fixed. You can call on four senators and seven delegates to motivate the DOH to make the needed repairs. The odds are 11 to 3 in favor of the Kanawha voter getting preferential treatment in state legislature under the current system, and that is just not fair.

Each voter from Kanawha County is represented by 12% of the West Virginia Senate, yet each voter in the rest of the state is only represented by 6%. That is unfair representation. The House of Delegates is just as bad while in most of the state each voter is represented by 1% of the House, in Kanawha’s 30^th District each voter is represented by 7% of the House, in Raleigh’s 27^th District each voter is represented by 5% of the House, Monongalia’s 44^th, Logan/Lincoln’s 19^th, and Harrison’s 41^st have 4%. There are a few three and two delegate districts, but the majorities are single delegate districts.

Consider that in one of the growth areas of the state Berkeley County each voter is only represented by one delegate, 1% or the House, and two Senators, 6% of the Senate. This gives each voter in Berkeley County a clear disadvantage in representation Charleston when compared to Kanawha County or some of the others with multi-delegate districts. Consider that this arrangement should be unconstitutional under West Virginia’s constitution which states; “Article II, 2-4. Equal representation; Every citizen shall be entitled to equal representation in the government, and, in all apportionments of representation, equality of numbers of those entitled thereto, shall as far as practicable, be preserved.”

West Virginian’s current system also appears to violate the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment states; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The US Supreme Court has already interpreted the “Equal Protection Clause” to extend to voting districts. In the 1963 case Grey v. Sanders the court held, 8 to 1, that State elections must adhere to the one person, one vote principle. Justice William Douglas wrote the majority opinion stated, "The concept of political equality...can mean only one thing—one person, one vote".

As it stands right now one person, one vote only applies to some West Virginian’s while others get more than one vote. If you live in Martinsburg you get to vote for one Delegate to represent you and one Senator, if you live in Charleston you get to vote for seven Delegates and two Senators to represent you. It is time that we change West Virginia’s legislative districts. Where each voter is represented by only one delegate and two senators, so that the districts are fair and come in line with both the state and US Constitutions.