Zeiger argues that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is unjust, unconstitutional, and dangerous to the minority groups it will protect. This is untrue. First Zeiger assets that the act is unconstitutional. He bases this on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of equal protection under the law. Straight white middle-class Christian men have unfair advantages in society.
Equal protection is needed, but something needs to be done to level the playing field first.
The goal of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is to level the playing field. As an Amendment to the Constitution, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is meant to supersede the Fourteenth Amendment, fixing the problem of interpretation exhibited by Zeiger. Zeiger then argues that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act violates the Tenth Amendment. This is a poor argument. Had the United States followed the Tenth Amendment, in an extreme case, there may still be slavery in the southern states.