It is amazing how far away we as a nation have strayed from the original vision of the founders with regards to the proper role of government. We have, in fact, devolved 180 degrees from that original purpose. Government was intended to be the protector of the rights of the people. Every individual was to be free to pursue his idea of happiness, as long as he did not violate the rights of others to do the same.

Government was to step in only when one’s “liberty interest” was violated to “restore” the victim. This was called the restorative justice principle. In fact, there was no “crime” other than treason against the people as a whole, unless there was a victim. No fines were paid to the State. The sole purpose of the law was to restore the victim.

Today, we have a vast assortment of “crimes” where the de facto purpose of the law is to collect “fines” for the State. It is, in fact, another tax on the people. As an attorney who practiced criminal defense for many years, I can assure you that the victim (when there is a real crime committed) is rarely restored, and is often left out of the proceedings.

On the other side of the coin, because we have allowed government to pick and choose who obtains the favors of government, government is now used to protect those who destroy the rights of others. Federal and State regulations are issued that protect and “exempt” industries from the violations they cause to others.

The inevitable abuse of power by government was the principle reason why the founders said NO power should be given to the federal government to even be involved AT ALL, unless those powers were specifically enumerated in the constitution.

Despite the obvious abuse of power, there are those who still have faith in the government, if only “their” people would be elected into office. “Put good people in and we’ll be okay”, they say. “Elect the representative from my party, and all will be put right” they contend. The two party system is the perfect cover for the abuse of power, as it gives us the illusion of choice. The vast system of bureaucracy continues despite whoever is in office.

The big multi-national corporations almost always “donate” to both parties to cover their bases. They will continue to do so as a “cost of doing business” as long as the power to give favors exists. I can assure you that all forms of financial contributions will magically end (without the need for campaign finance reform) if the 10th amendment was restored to its original intent.

Our system of government was unique in history in that it at least attempted to prevent the possibility of abuse of power by TAKING AWAY the power that had throughout history had always been abused. We were given the freedom formula by the founders who did everything they knew how to protect us. It is WE THE PEOPLE who have allowed the abuses to reoccur and it is only WE THE PEOPLE who can possibly restore the constitutional protections.

Ed Noyes is a freelance writer and activist.  Visit his websites at SuperLiberty.com and Rhofam.com

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts–as opposed to willful criminal acts–is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence.

One of HR 1592′s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.