Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: saleman

I’ve gotten the same crap you have; ie, that I’m in favor of smacking women around.

Never have, don’t see any reason to.

The VAWA is plainly unconstitutional for many reasons, and it strips men of a whole lot of rights, starting with due process and ending with their rights to own guns. The entire premise of the law is hostile to the US Constitution, starting from the notion that the federal government has anything to say about simple criminal behavior outside their jurisdiction. There’s no interstate commerce going on here. There’s no protected class. There’s no Fourteenth Amendment issue. The Federal government has no interest or power over this issue, if we read the Constitution as strict constructionists.

Well, my solution to this situation is to tell young men “Opt out. The cows want to give free milk, no money down, so take them up on their offer.”

Today, the only reason to get married is to have children. If young men don’t want children (and most don’t now, for obvious reasons), then don’t get married. Don’t shack up. Live as a free man instead.

The statistics show that I’m not the only one giving out this advice, and there’s many young men hearing the same words from other sources.

As for women who might ask “Well why should we be penalized if we’re not crazy witches?”

Well, gals, you allowed the feminists to do this crap in your name and your sex, and your silence was taken as assent.


41 posted on 03/26/2014 1:43:55 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: NVDave
The entire premise of the law is hostile to the US Constitution, starting from the notion that the federal government has anything to say about simple criminal behavior outside their jurisdiction. There’s no interstate commerce going on here. There’s no protected class. There’s no Fourteenth Amendment issue. The Federal government has no interest or power over this issue, if we read the Constitution as strict constructionists.

I agree with you, but the courts don't.

The statute technically prohibits only possession of a firearm by a felon (or DV misdemeanant) "in or affecting [interstate] commerce," but SCOTUS held in Barrett v. United States (1976) that, to get a conviction, all the prosecution has to show is that the firearm, or any of its component parts, once moved in interstate commerce, even if that movement happened long before this defendant ever acquired the gun.

Just as an aside, Congress used that same legal legerdemain in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act. That statute bans partial birth abortions "in or affecting commerce," which is defined as an abortion performed in a clinic which uses any medical supplies which ever moved in interstate commerce.

45 posted on 03/26/2014 2:22:13 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson