Skip to comments.Violence Against Women Act Shreds Rights
Posted on 03/01/2013 4:38:44 AM PST by scottfactor
On Thursday, the House voted to approve the latest incarnation of the Violence Against Women Act. So, its a done deal, and its not good.
Before the vote, national talk radio host Mark Levin, on Wednesday evening, called for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to step down from the position. Cantor is yet another of the Republicans who is fighting against the conservatives in Washington. Levin called for Cantors ouster from House leadership after Cantor threatened conservatives who had opposed the new version of the Violence Against Women Act, which now awaits the signature of Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) after House Republicans bowed down in obedience to their debilitating fear of standing on conservative principles.
As reported on Wednesday at National Review Online:
In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, theyd cause civil war in the ranks.
Cantors comment irked some Republican aides, who told National Review Online that such strong language is inappropriate. In recent days, some conservatives have been upset about the Senates version of VAWA, saying that parts of the bill are unconstitutional.
The conservatives are right.
Like most bad legislation, the euphemistic name does not tell the true story of the shredding of natural rights and equal protection under the law that lies within. Also, as with most legislation out of Washington, the bill is a mammoth 288 pages of amending, striking, and inserting tedium. But within that tedium are some very bad provisions.
Mark Levin mentioned a column by Daniel Horowitz about this pending legislation. I found the column titled, Say No to the Violence Against the Constitution Act, on the Madison Project website. It was written almost a year ago. Mr. Horowitz wrote:
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 laws 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.
There are a number of bad provisions in this bill, but notice the second point about unpleasant speech and emotional distress. Those are certainly open to interpretation, arent they? Those passages are unconstitutional, period.
This is the very thing that leads to what I have warned of before, concerning so-called hate crimes laws, which are also unconstitutional, because they blow equal protection under the law out of the water.
Now that this already bad law has been expanded to include homosexuals and other deviants and illegal aliens, along with unpleasant speech and causing emotional distress being considered forms of domestic violence or stalking, we have taken another step toward our free speech rights being squashed.
When unconstitutional hate crimes laws have been proposed (and passed), many of us have warned that these would eventually include penalties for speech deemed offensive, and of course homosexual advocates ridiculed the warning. The warning is true, and besides whatever else is wrong with this bad law, the latest revision of the Violence Against Everyone and Their Dog Act is one more step toward hate speech laws becoming a reality in our nation.
Thanks a lot to the soulless House Republicans (cowed by Eric Cantor) who voted for this trash in an effort to win the favor of the stupid women who voted for Obama.
“It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing emotional distress or using unpleasant speech.
Today, if someone is convicted of domestic violence, they restrict access to guns.
This will further erode 2nd amendment rights.
Some folks like Cantor. It can be hard, sometimes, to identify the "good" Republicans vs the RINOs. People disagree on who is who. I have a simple way of making sure that I never support a "good" Republican only to find out later that the guy is a lousy RINO -- I no longer vote for Republicans of any kind. I'm done with the GOP and I'm a third party guy now.
I am still a registered Republican, but waiting for something better to come along.
I am certainly underwhelmed with their performance of late.
” I no longer vote for Republicans of any kind. I’m done with the GOP and I’m a third party guy now.”
So you’ve made a habit of voting for losers and helping the left.
I'm out of that party because I do not plan to help the Left or vote for losers. But you are free to continue the practice.
I think the combination af anger and frustration is just one of those parts of the human psyche that defies reasoning except to blurt out words and walk away.
Perhaps more cruel and sad is the battered spouse that stays together with the batterer.
well gee how about getting involved instead of sitting back expecting everyone else to do the work
My granddaughter grew up with guns but when she went on her first hunt she decided that it wasn’t for her and so except for bows stopped shooting. Her parents sent her off to college with mace and a lot of self-defense tips.
I don’t know why but all of a sudden she wants a pistol and she wants to learn how to use it well. I can assure you her father got her the gun before she finished the whole sentence.
Get over it.
Voting for Liberal RINOs is why we are in this mess. Voting independent does not vote for a democrat or liberal.....only low information voters think that way.
If Obama joined the GOP you probably would immediately support him because he now has an R next to his name
Have you ever attended a meeting to help a conservative candidate? I bet not.
You just sit back and whine that others aren’t doing your work well enough. Just like all those other 3rd party losers.
"Great! I'll bring my raping shoes!"
I’m curious... When does the lack of quality in GOP(e) candidates, the lack of conservatism, become THEIR fault, and not each individual voter’s fault for not towing the party line?
Is there such a stage, in your view?
I've tried to contribute, but they have always made it clear that efforts to push the GOP to the Left are welcome, efforts to push the GOP to the Right are not.
My state is hopeless. Took me years to admit that, but it's just true.
If hope remains in your state, that's fine for you. But I see no reason to have hope in the GOP at the national level. Just like in MA, it's all Ivy League stuff now and that means Conservatism is shunned by the party.
Did I mention anything about towing the “party” line?
I’ve found the local GOP party to be very conservative but it needs more. I think we’re the largest county GOP in Florida.
So will they be able to send Elizabeth warren armed with a bow and arrows and dressed it full war paint after you if you don't bother to show up to what ever passes for a court in Indian country?
But seriously, virtually every legal scholar I've talked to says this provision is so blatantly unconstitutional and in conflict with prior Supreme Court rulings that it will most likely be struck down unanimously. It essentially gives any member of a Indian tribe the ability to charge any non- member with a crime, and arrest them to be tried under the tribes laws. They would essentially lose all their constitutional protections and rights to appeal.
“It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing emotional distress or using unpleasant speech.”
And coverage has been expanded to men.
So, does that mean she can’t tell me that she’s breaking up with or divorcing me? I would certainly think that was “unpleasant speech” and it would cause me “emotional distress”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.