4 November, 2007

A “Hate” Incident in California

Posted by Socrates in "civil rights", 'hate' crimes, Socrates at 4:07 pm | Permanent Link

This matter raises several important questions, among them a constitutional one: why is this a federal police matter, i.e., what about the 10th Amendment? Doesn’t that amendment say that anything not mentioned in the constitution becomes a matter for the states or local people to settle? Are “hate crimes” or “civil rights” mentioned in the constitution? (Answer: no) [1][2]:


[1] the 10th Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”

[2] the U.S. constitution: [Here]

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 10/21/16 Real Private-Property Rights vs. Black Ex-Criminal “Rights” 85% similar
  3. 06/26/15 Big Fag Wins a Major Victory as Supreme Court Rules Queer Marriage is a Constitutional Right 81% similar
  4. 12/08/09 Obama to Sign Copenhagen Climate Treaty? 79% similar
  5. 04/29/21 What Are Civil Rights?, or, Chauvin Again 60% similar
  6. 05/07/07 Shaun Walker and “Civil Rights” Laws 58% similar
  7. 5 Responses to “A “Hate” Incident in California”

    1. Vaultner Says:

      Not to get off subject, but I’ve always liked the Tenth Amendment regarding the Second. “The right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed”. Clearly does not leave it up to state interpretation.
      I think the reason the FBI is involved; to some extent is mention near the bottom of the article.
      “The FBI’s Cauthen said the agency has a specific directive that if a noose is involved in a crime, aggressive action must be taken. That instruction was issued after civil rights issues were raised about the recent case in Jena, La.”
      But that gives no Constitutional validity of their presence. I suppose the any precedence would come from their involvement in the south during the sixties.

    2. sgruber Says:

      This nation, under Lincoln, fought a great war to…kill the 10th Amendment. The 14th effectively cancels the 10th.

    3. Socrates Says:

      Note: the 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified properly.

    4. -jc Says:

      Note that this is being described as an “incident” rather than a crime by law enforcement and there is a big difference. The sheriff’s office has taken over the investigation because they have the resources and it is a county matter. The FBI may have political direction to be aggressively involved in such matters but it has no authority whatsoever to prosecute anyone for anything even if they determine “who done it.” You’ll notice that apparently it is not being investigated the same as if it had been a homicide.

      It would not be rocket science to determine who handled the rope using DNA evidence, provided DNA samples could be obtained from the “garbage men” with access to the facility. That however would quickly become the civil rights matter. Maybe they want an outraged, vocal minority to demand a skin, blood, and hair sample as part of a job application and that is the point the media is pushing. California counties are taking DNA swabs during booking of inmates already.

      It is undoubtedly one of glorified, full-time, union “suits,” one of the usual suspects making money from labor organizing rather than getting herself dirty and volunteering as a collateral duty, who is over-blowing the matter: “Joan Bryant, representative for the International Union of Operating Engineers-Stationary Engineers Local 39…”

    5. DMS Says:

      Interesting to see how easy it is to push the Feds’ buttons and get them to divert their resources. I envision, at an opportune moment, something akin to a DOS attack involving thousand of noos’d mannequins.