« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Say No to Violence Against the Constitution Act

One of the oldest legislative schemes of the left is to hide terrible statist laws behind mellifluous sounding names.  There is no better example of this outrage than the Orwellian Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, which is up for reauthorization before the Senate.  Democrats want to expand the role of this already ill-conceived bill in a way that will subvert our judicial system and shred the Bill of Rights.  Their tactic is working, as most Republicans will blithely let it pass the Senate – and possibly even the House.  After all, who would want to go on record as supporting violence against women?

Under our criminal justice system, states and local governments are vested with the police power to deal with crimes committed against its residents.  Those powers are just as robust, whether the crime has been committed against a man, a woman, and everything in between (except for the unborn, thanks to Roe v. Wade).  In 1994, the Clinton Administration waded into the criminal justice system by imposing a federal prosecutorial and investigative regime to combat domestic violence.  This new layer of government, housed in the Department of Justice, focused on redistributing judicial power to female victims and undermining equal protection, due process and the presumption of innocence for men – all to satisfy the cult of group victimhood.  Moreover, the billions spent on sundry social programs have shown no success in reducing incidents of domestic violence, while precluding state and local governments from dealing with the problem as reflected by the reality in their areas of jurisdiction.

Now, in an attempt to reauthorize VAWA for the third time, Harry Reid is bringing S. 1925 to the floor later this afternoon.  Like every social engineering statist law of the left, this one includes massive mission creep from the original intent.  Here are some new previsions in S. 1925:

  • The last reauthorization expanded the programs and protections to the elderly and children.  This one would expand “coverage” to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners.  After all, in a liberal marriage you have to have some way of identifying the husband and the wife.  Nonetheless, this will force shelters for battered women to service …well, some other individuals as well.
  • It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.”
  • It expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence within the borders of an Indian reservation.
  • It would grant more visas to illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic abuse.

In a sane world, this bill would only garner fringe support, yet it is cosponsored by 60 senators, including 8 Republicans – Ayotte, Brown, Collins, Crapo (the ringleader), Heller, Kirk, Murkowski, and Snowe.  Even Republican opponents of the bill have already announced that they don’t plan to mount a filibuster, ostensibly ensuring that is passes the Senate.  While there is strong opposition to many of the new provisions from most House Republicans, Boehner has already promised to support a clean extension of VAWA.  And once again, the ACLU is nowhere to be found when it comes to true defense of civil liberties.  There aren’t too many people in power who are willing to put the brakes on this train wreck.

Folks, this is not reflective of a truce on social issues; this is surrender on social issues.

The entire concept of criminal laws designed for specific groups or specific motivations, such as VAWA and hate crimes legislation, is an anathema to our constitutional beliefs.  Under our constitutional framework, all suspects of any form of violence are afforded due process and a trial by jury.  We (unlike liberals) believe that the violent offender, if found guilty, should be punished severely.  Liberals can talk about a war on women, but it is they who have declared war on every law-abiding citizen with their moral relativist battle to water down our criminal justice system.  There is no room for laws like VAWA in our constitutional republic, certainly not the current bill pending before the Senate.

Call your senators and find out if they plan to vote for this travesty.  Call your member of Congress and request that they tell Boehner not to bring any VAWA reauthorization to the floor.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • davenj1

    Under what enumerated power is Congress authorized to pass this law? Please don’t tell me the Necessary and Proper Clause…

    • jakeofalltrades

      Yes, courts actually think spending is a separate power.

  • WmCraig

    The name alone should be enough to understand this legislation is wrong. An important discussion we can engage in here helps to arm our politicians with the tools they need to fight this political maneuver. We can’t ask our Senators and Congressman to risk easy political attacks without first giving them a viable anti-administration response to the likely election year propaganda this will generate.

    Here is my contribution:
    Great, Eric Holder doesn’t have enough to worry about with the fast and furious gun running scandal and the secret service hooker abuse scandal, we want to trust him to protect our daughters too?

    I think Eric Holder should prove he understands that women are more than just objects and the definition of “protect” before we give him more control over our daughters lives, don?t you?

    I used the following rules to develop this response.
    RULE 4: ?Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.?
    RULE 5: ?Ridicule is man?s most potent weapon.?
    RULE 8: ?Keep the pressure on. Never let up.?
    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.?

    Do you have anything the politicians can use? Lets get it out there for their campaigns.

  • PGDeFreese

    in the Dem political theatrical presentation we know as the “War on Women”.

    Stayed tuned for the fall presentation of “Romney, Romney, Racist”.

  • ss396

    NRSC Chairman John Cornyn is not listed as a co-sponsor to this bill (S.1925). However, Sen. Cornyn has an opinion piece in today’s Houston Chronicle in full-throated support of renewing VAWA.

    http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Let-s-seek-justice-for-women-3498843.php

    Nowhere does he explain why the goals and purposes of the bill are the responsibility of the Federal Government, instead of the individual States. He is surely not at all committed to smaller Federal Government; he has apparently forgotten what his why he was sent to Washington, and what his party supposedly stands for.

    As he is the chairman of the NRSC, this is infuriating – that a member with his standing and rank insists on playing the role of Democrat-lite, and a gender politics fellow-traveler.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      there are several others who are not cosponsoring but will definitely vote for it.

  • chaote

    If this law is bad then why is nobody talking about the multitude of sex offender laws ? Isnt attacking a certain class of people is as bad as defending a certain class of people?

    They enact these laws because they think that states dont do enough, IE federal power must be used. I think this law is bad and is merely pandering, but to be consistent then we must abolish most of the overarching federal criminal laws that try and trump state law.