A Stitch in Haste

"Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592."
--Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1592, 3 May 2007

So the president has suddenly become a bold and proud libertarian by threatening to veto the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007? How praiseworthy of him.

Or not.

I just hope all libertarians are not as hopelessly naive as the Cato Institute's Tim Lynch:

This is a most welcome development as the bill is an affront to the constitutional principle of federalism.

Because this president, of, e.g., "No Child Left Behind" infamy, is just teeming with concern over federalism.

Grow up.

The president will veto this bill if it reaches his desk not because of the one word, "federalism." He will veto it because of the two words, "sexual orientation."

Ronald Reagan supposedly said, "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy." Well, that works both ways: My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend. And Bush's percentage, both to gays and libertarians, is far higher than 80%.

Consequentialism is the last refuge of socialists and central planners. Libertarians have no business embracing it.

Shame on those who would celebrate this pandering to bigots as a supposed libertarian victory in the name of federalism.

Oppose the bill if you truly deem it proper to do so. But don't praise this most anti-libertarian of presidents for using — corrupting — libertarian principles as a dodge to appease his anti-libertarian, theocrat base.

More thoughts at Crime & Federalism.