The principles of federalism
Gotta watch out for that overreach stuff. It can get in your clothes and your pipes and your engines and just mess everything up. Like making lynching a federal crime – that would be a terrible reckless thing to do.
Historic legislation that would make lynching a federal hate crime passed the House by near-unanimous consent Wednesday—with four representatives opposing it.
Not because they like lynching – no no. Because they don’t like federal overreach.
Three Republicans voted against the measure: GOP members Ted Yoho of Florida, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. The chamber’s lone Independent, Justin Amash of Michigan—who famously switched from Republican to Independent over his support for impeaching President Donald Trump—also voted no.
It passed 410 to 4 though.
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.
Power to do what? Say that this particular lynching wasn’t a hate crime but a temper tantrum or mistaken identity or purely financially motivated?
“This bill today is an overreach of the federal government and encroaches on the principles of federalism,” the retiring lawmaker told Newsweek in a statement. “Hate crimes fall under the jurisdiction of states, which has led to 46 states producing various hate crime statutes. In my home state of Florida, these crimes are already under state government jurisdiction and are punishable up to death.”
But why not have the whole country on the record? Who is threatened by that?
And states were notoriously diligent in enforcing the lynching laws.
Wait, not diligent. What’s that other word? Rhymes with diligent, but starts with neg-?
It hurts people who don’t like that swampy-federal overreachy stuff. It’s the thin edge of the slippery-slope-camel-nose-wedge. Those things are always bad news.
Yes, but they were gents about it, that’s the important thing. That sort of thing is earned; it can’t be demanded or coerced.
A whole 46 states have hate crime statutes? Amazing. Pity there’s actually 50 states. Who are the missing 4?
And why is it federal overreach to stop people being lynched but totally OK for the federal government to overrule state law on say cannabis or vehicle emission standards?
Not to mention that many of these people who scream about “federal overreach” want the feds to outlaw all abortions. And force school children to pray.
Lynching is murder and already against the law. Murder is not usually a federal crime. I don’t think it’s accurate to say the point of the law is to stop people from being lynched, unless the legislators genuinely think a federal court and a harsher punishment will act as more of a deterrent than a state murder conviction. Although some states have a history of failure to convict people for lynching, so maybe it will be a deterrent.
I’m less supportive of hate crime laws nowadays, particularly since they started declaring “transphobia” and criticism of religion to be hate speech, but not misogyny. (Hate speech is not the same as hate crime, but I think the point still stands.)
This stands as a timely reminder that Justin Amash, despite doing the principled thing re. Trump and impeachment, is not actually a particularly principled politician.
“Hate crimes fall under the jurisdiction of states, which has led to 46 states producing various hate crime statutes.” And now the count is 50.