« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP House Passes Unconstitutional Democrat VAWA Bill

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  February 28th, 2013 at 03:22 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Earlier today, the Republican-controlled House passed the Senate version of the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  The Senate bill expands “coverage” to illegal aliens, men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners.  It  also expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women.

The final bill passed with the support of 87 Republicans.  Before voting on this bill, the House considered a substitute amendment that removed some of the new anomalies.  It was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and 60 Republicans.  It is important to note that about half of the GOP noes were opposing the bill precisely because it did not contain the new social engineering provisions.  So even if all the conservatives had supported the House version, there were enough liberal Republicans to block it.  Moreover, even had the GOP version passed the House, the conferees would have inserted the extra provisions in conference anyway.

We’d like to thank the following members who understood that the entire premise of the bill is flawed, superfluous, and an unconstitutional federal power grab.  The only thing the federal government can do to protect women is to pass a universal right to carry bill.  Everything else is just big government demagoguery.  There is no reason a GOP-controlled House should have brought this bill before the body, much less the Senate passed version.  If they are concerned about the political optics, they should have just ignored it and changed the subject to…let’s say gas and food prices.  Now that is a novel idea.  Giving the Democrats two full days to bludgeon you with gender warfare during debate time is evidently more politically prudent than repealing the ethanol mandate or some other useful legislation.

What is the purpose of a GOP-controlled House anyway?

The following 27 members voted no on both bills:

Bridenstine, Jim
Broun, Paul
Cotton, Tom
Culberson, John
DeSantis, Ron
Duncan, Jeff
Duncan, John
Fincher, Stephen
Garrett, Scott
Gohmert, Louie
Gosar, Paul
Hastings, Doc
Huelskamp, Tim
Jones, Walter
Lamborn, Doug
McClintock, Tom
Meadows, Mark
Mullin, Markwayne
Noem, Kristi
Olson, Pete
Petri, Thomas
Pompeo, Mike
Radal, Trey
Schweikert, David
Sensenbrenner, James
Stockman, Steve
Yoho, Ted

 Cross-posted from ConservativeVotingRecords.com

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

    So, Assault and Battery is a Federal Crime now? The FBI, Holder, et al doesnt have enough to do already?

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    Any Republican who voted for the senate version should receive a primary challenge (especially if they are in a GOP district). Also, I am disappointed in Boehner and Cantor…AGAIN!

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    I’ve always been pro-always vote for the GOPer in the general election.

    But it is votes like these that make me wonder why I support that rule…it is really frustrating. My rep is good, but my senators have angered me.

  • kentucky

    It is the same old “federal grant ” money laundering with some trial lawyer giveaways thrown in for good measure. So much of what is wrong with Congress can be seen in this bill.

  • checkmate2012

    Eric Cantor has a new buddy- Biden! Cantor is a disgrace and needs to be voted out of office. So he allows the vote to take place, votes yes to the House version and then no to the Senate bill. The House is useless and this bill is a disaster. How many more bills will the House put to a vote that the majority of R’s oppose?

    Biden’s quote about Cantor from the Hill.com:
    “He kept his word. He said he’d let the Congress speak,” Biden said. “He could have prevented this from coming to a vote under the ordinary rules that had been employed in the past. But he didn’t. So I want to probably hurt him, but I want to publicly thank him, because he kept his word. Where I come from, your word matters. Where I come from, your word matters.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/285603-biden-praises-cantor-for-allowing-vote-on-senate-domestic-violence-bill#ixzz2MFU7UNv3
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    Some high RINOs like Spencer Bachus and Mike Simpson from extremely GOP districts need to be defeated.

  • reggie1

    Isn’t the issue here that VAWA granted tribal rights to try non-tribal citizens? In other words, if a female tribe member accuses me, a male non-tribe member, and I venture onto tribal land, then they have jurisdiction over me. Anyway, that’s my read.

  • slicksleddog

    That’s exactly the issue, and the Heritage piece is taking the position that it would be Constitutional only if tribal judges were selected by the same process as Federal officers are selected under Article II, and only if the tribal judges had the same protections that Federal judges are provided under Article III.

    Thinking about it some more, there are tons of situations where Federal laws can be applied by state courts, even when there are no state law questions. It seems to me that same argument from Heritage would apply to those situations, since state judges certainly aren’t appointed per Article II, or given life tenure and guaranteed salary per Article III. (God help us if that were ever to come to pass.)

    Furthermore, there was some sentiment at the time that the Constitution was drawn up for not having a Federal judiciary at all, but just relying on state courts to apply Federal laws. That view didn’t prevail, and instead we got a system that had coexisting Federal and state judiciaries, with the state courts having the power to apply Federal law in some instances. The Heritage piece view, if taken to its logical conclusion, would completely strip the state courts of the power to apply Federal law (at least where there was no state law to apply), which would weaken the state courts and expand the reach of the Federal courts (to have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases exclusively involving Federal law). This seems wrong in a lot of ways (policy, original intent, and long-standing practice).

  • Finrod

    Sad but true. Same with Cantor.

  • stewco

    I wonder the same about Ros-Lehtinen of Miami. She seems to be voting more with the Democrats lately. Is this because the Miami Cuban population voted 50% for Obama and she’s nervous?