Changes

If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills.  The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad.  Their narative is out of date.  We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly.  If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so.  But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)

If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills.  The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad.  Their narative is out of date.  We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly.  If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so.  But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)

:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunadia hasntely, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)

:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunadia hasntely, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)

::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]]} 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)

::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]]} 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)

:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused.  The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court.  The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines.  Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court.  State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense.  To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)

:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused.  The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court.  The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines.  Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court.  State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense.  To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)