Mosque violence in N.Y. State - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com
Should the federal government intervene here or is this a pure 10th Amendment issue--let the locals handle location of mosque's and handle prosecution of violence in their communities? Is this a federal civil rights issue or just plain and simple local prosecution issue? What would the implications of the 10th Amendment be?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel as though the state government should have intervened a little more than by giving the kids "misdemeanors." I think that firing a shot gun (even though it didn't hit anybody) should warrant something closer to a hate crime. If the kids would have been simply yelling obscenities than I can see that as using their freedom of speech, but the firing of a gun seems to really escalate the threat of violence in this situation. I don't think this should be handled at the federal level (which it wasn't). Most all states have anti-hate crime laws already set into place so I don't see there being any reason to push this up to a federal level.
ReplyDeleteThe main defense for the activities of the anti-Mosque bandwagon is their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. I would agree that they have the right to speak out against the Mosque and attend city zoning meetings to voice their opinion to the officials who will be making the decision. But as this article illustrates, the actions of the teens has gone past Constitutional protection.
ReplyDeleteJackie, I agree with your statement that firing the shot gun warranted something "closer to a hate crime." I would draw on the legalese and Constitutional interpretation laid out in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), in which the Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin's penalty-enhancement law. A group of black men targeted a white boy to beat up specifically because of his race. Assault was beefed up under the law to aggravated battery. The Supreme Court upheld the WI law for three reasons, which I see applicable to this current incident:
1. Physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment (firing a shot gun and sideswiping a worshiper with a vehicle are NOT constitutionally protected forms of expression).
2. In previous cases, sentencing judges have been allowed to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim (there is no doubt that the victims in this case were targeted as a direct result of their religious standing).
3. The law punishes only conduct, NOT speech (anti-Mosque demonstrators have been allowed to voice their dissatisfaction with the plan with Constitutional protections; those protections do not extend to battery and/or firing a shot gun in city limits).
State Supreme Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled over and again in similar cases. Throughout history, religion has been the impetus and the victim of targeted violence, enough so that the Supreme Court has made it a federally-protected class (just like race). It is unjust to apply those protections inconsistently. The charges of "disrupting a religious service" are a joke. It is up to the State, as per the 10th Amendment, to extend those protections to the members of the Mosque while properly punishing those whose conduct (not speech) is criminally punishable. If the NY Supreme Court is unwilling to step up in this case, then it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to follow stare decisis (precedent).
I agree with both above statements. "Disrupting a religious ceremony," does not begin to cover the crimes of the teenagers or the motives behind their actions.
ReplyDeleteThe controversy surrounding the mosque building is growing every day and the more we allow protesters to cross the line in terms of their expression the more quickly things could escalate to dangerous levels.
In my opinion incidents like these should be more strictly punished to set an example of behavior that is not tolerated by the New York City Police. If the violence had been directed from the other side of the conflict I believe firmly that more strict punishment would have been applied.
On the other hand, national commentary on this article is just that: commentary. If we assume that we have the right to determine the sentence here then we are overstepping the jurisdiction of the NYC Police Department. Whether or not I agree with the punishment they applied here, the city police in New York have to take control of this situation. Any input from federal commentators risks the intrusion of the federal government into this entire situation (a direction I believe we are already headed in). At its core, this situation is a state issue in New York as outlined by the tenth amendment.