Americans were horrified by the brutal murders of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming a decade ago. “There ought to be a law…,” some people said, preferably a federal one.

Of course, even then, there was a law. Murder is a serious crime everywhere regardless of its motive and it has been as far back as the advent of our civilization. Indeed, all but a few states have additional, special hate crimes statutes. No one is claiming that state authorities have been neglecting their duty to enforce the law. Matthew Shepard’s tormentors are now serving life sentences; James Byrd’s are on death row awaiting execution. Unfortunately, both tragedies quickly became an opportunity for political grandstanding. Bereaved relatives were paraded before the cameras in staged events that allowed politicians to get their faces beamed into our living rooms.

But the proposed federal hate crimes legislation that they touted as a response to the Jasper and Laramie murders should not have been treated merely as a photo opportunity. It is real legislation with real world consequences—and some of them are bad. Skeptics of the approach taken by the bill have managed to keep it bottled up all these years. President Obama, however, has said that this legislation will be among his civil rights

priorities. A close examination of its consequences, especially its consequences for federalism and double jeopardy protections, is therefore in order.