Interstate Commerce? Seriously?

Did you know that one of the areas most significantly affected by so-called "hate crimes" is interstate commerce? Well, according to S. 909, introduced into the Senate by Sen. Ted Kennedy(D-MA) it is. The bill, titled the 'Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,' states the following as point 6 of Section I:

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

First of all, I have something of an issue with the whole "hate crimes" thing in that I don't understand why "hate crimes" have to be singled/separated out into their own legislation. A "hate crime" is still a crime; it's already a crime regardless of the motivation behind it. Sure, it's a horrible thing to beat up, or even kill, someone because you don't like the color of their skin but shouldn't it be horrible regardless? I could even see the case made that nearly all crimes, regardless of type or motivation, are rooted in "hate" in some shape or form.

But that's not really the point of the section I quoted above...I'm of the opinion that if a particular section/item/paragraph in a relatively "scholarly" piece of writing (I would consider written legislation to qualify here) makes you laugh out loud after reading it, it's probably garbage. There are, of course, exceptions--for instance, some things are clearly intended to be funny when read. I feel fairly confident in my assertion that written U.S. legislation is not typically used as a vehicle for overtly humorous statements, so I think it's safe to say that I take what I read in bills from the Congress to be intended to mean what they say.

It is in this light that I would ask the reader to consider the above quoted section--I will say that upon my first reading, I burst out laughing and felt certain that I had misread something. Interstate commerce?? Really? If hate crimes have such a significant impact on interstate commerce for the reasons they provide, I can hardly think of anything that WOULDN'T. I find this particularly interesting given the increasing encroachment of the federal government into the regulation of various activities by throwing out the justification that they "affect interstate commerce." This scares me--if the government can twist the issue of hate crime into something that impacts interstate commerce, there isn't much they can't.