The Republican Party in the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously FOR the Violence Against Women Act on the last two occasions when the legislation came up for renewal, with only two and one members voting no!
This time, today, 138 voted NO, and Speaker John Boehner only accomplished its passage with two thirds of the votes being the opposition Democrats. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had the gall to vote NO, against his own Speaker, absolutely unbelievable!
But even more unbelievable was that many of the women in the House Republican caucus also voted NO, despite the evidence of the threats against women by men in their lives, which has now become an epidemic! And these women showed their anti immigrant, anti gay, and anti native American sympathies in their vote, as well!
What drove Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, and Virginia Foxx of North Carolin, the most prominent of these women, to vote NO? What was going through their heads? What makes them tick?
The three women are a total disgrace to their gender, and to the concept of social justice in the 21st century! They should be ashamed of themselves!
First of all it was not an extension of the VAW Act, it’s a totally different bill that came from the Senate, you are being intellectually dishonest by not mentioning that last year, the House passed a version that was, more or less, a clean re-authorization of the VAW act. But the Senate version (S.47),contains egregious anomalies. The Senate bill expands “coverage†to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners. It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress†or using “unpleasant speech.†It ostensibly nullifies the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The bill also expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women. Finally, what good is a social engineering bill without tossing in bones to the most sacrosanct constituency, illegal immigrants? It would grant more visas to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. So you see these are the reason that some honorable representatives voted against it. Furthermore, since when is it the purview of the federal government to deal with domestic violence? This is a state issue, like all criminal acts.
Oh Juan, Oh Juan, you know very well that many states would NOT protect women, and that is why it MUST be a federal law!
Oh Ron , Oh Ron, always forgetting there is something called the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. But tell where are these states that don’t have laws against battery and sexual abuse?But lets say, I’ll grant you the federal law, did the Democrats just have to add all those changes to the original VAW act? Why didn’t they just pass the re-authorization approved by the House of Representatives? Do you agree with all those changes? Do you agree with expanding the definition of violence to “unpleasant speech”? What the hell is that? Who defines it? Why a husband started ranting leftist incoherent propaganda , would that be unpleasant speech? Or what if the wife is a die hard liberal and her husband changed and became a conservative, would his speech be unpleasant? How much you want to bet we could find a nut-job judge that would! ? Do you agree with expanding “coverage†to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners? What on earth are we talking about!?? You are in your right to, but I am also in my right not to agree with them, as well as those that voted against them. Now does that mean that I am against women? Only for a twisted mind could it be so.
You seem to think that because someone is a native American, an undocumented immigrant, or gay, or even a prisoner, they should not have protection against violence visited on them by men. And this includes men and transgender people as well. Unpleasant speech will not be an effective manner for prosecution, no matter what the bill says, but you seem not to understand that many states do not provide protection for women that other states have, and despite the fact that we do not have the Equal Rights Amendment, states should not be able, by their backward view of women, to be able to victimize women, and put women’s rights back to the 19th century. ALL women should be protected the same no matter where they live, and this is not related to the Tenth Amendment.
Again, please name the states that don’t. Are gay men women? Are men women? Are CD women? Why should being a victim of a crime grant you a visa if you an illegal immigrant? Whether you are a man, woman, gay or CD? We already have laws against battery, assault and murder! Please name a state that doesn’t.
I do not know, off hand, but the point is that protection of these groups needs to be done on the federal level, and in the past, Republicans voted almost unanimously for the legislation, and now gave in, with Boehner only gaining one third of the votes for the passage from his own party—an embarrassment to him and his party, and its open minded, tolerant positions in the past, when the GOP was a reputable party!
Ron : Just for the record you didn’t mention that on Wednesday despite Republican grumbling, the House voted 414-9 to take up the bill on Thursday when they could have blocked it but didn’t. Cantor, in a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, warned Republicans that blocking the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act would cause “civil war” in the Republican ranks. So this a-hole will get his “civil war”. But that is another issue. Thus, Cantor as well as other weasels voted to take up the Bill, instead of blocking it and killing it, knowing full well that it would pass with Democrat votes. Of course then he as well as other bastards voted against it so they can say back home in their districts that they voted against it!! The thing is this is an old game in Washington, and I’m surprised you ignored it. One more thing, its astonishing how you repeat to the letter the progressive faith, when you say “the protection of these groups”. Always dividing the American people into groups. You just can’t help it.LOL!
By the way , you also don’t know off hand if whether gay men are women, men are women, CD are women, if a victim of a crime should be granted visa if he/she is an illegal immigrant or if Americans should be stripped of their constitutional rights and be prosecuted by Indian tribes for alleged acts of domestic violence? You have absolutely no idea?? Interesting.
I am a believer in human rights for all, and guaranteed by federal law, not state laws that can vary state by state! And “groups” need to be protected because of a history of discrimination! I do not apologize for this!
So men and CD have to be protected by the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT!!! LOL!!!!!
By the way, concerning federalism and the VAWA you should read UNITED STATES v. MORRISON : http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5/
There are 3 major reasons why this statute does not fall under the commerce clause power of the Constitution:
1. Gender motivated crimes are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic in nature.
2. The statute does not have any jurisdictional element that could show interaction between states.
3. The effects of gender motivated violence on interstate commerce are too attenuated.
According to the SCOTUS: “Indeed, if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder or any other type of violence since genger motivated violence, as a subset of all violent crime, is certain to have lesser economic impacts than the larger class of which it is a part.†In other words , parts of the VAWA have already been declared unconstitutional.
You are the attorney, which I am not, but many lawyers would disagree with you, and Congress passed this law multiple times, and there is no good enough reason to negate it now, or NOT to protect classes of people that have faced abuse!
Men?? Faced abuse from men, women or what? If you are calling the Act Violence Against Women, then it is totally incoherent to include men, cd , gays ,lesbians etc! LOL You can’t even admit that, you are so hung up in your ideology that common sense eludes you, well not only you but leftist in general! LOL!!!!!
By the way its the SCOTUS saying its unconstitutional !! LOL! But that doesn’t matter right? As long as the drones in Congress pass it its good enough for you! As long as some attorneys disagree its good enough for you. I wonder if those of us against Obamacare would have the same attitude toward that sinister law, and just decide not to obey it if you would think the same! Screw the SCOTUS, the House passed a Bill revoking Obamacare so its good enough for me! LOL!!!
CD, lesbians are women—men who are straight and gay are often victims as well–have you not heard of violence against men? Maybe it should not be in the law, based on the name of the law, but why not native Americans, lesbians, and undocumented immigrant women who are often victims of violence and are afraid to get help?
The present majority of the Court is trying to negate all the good things that occurred in the past 50 years, turning us back to the 1920s, and this is the result of the GOP appointees to the Court–set back progress and take away rights from victimized people, who finally had some justice, but now, according to your view, who cares?
Regarding the Indians, the law gives tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women! That is what we are talking about! Its not that native American women cannot be protected. Also why give a visa to an illegal immigrant just because she or he is victim of a crime? It does not make sense! Less sense when the Obama administration just let loose thousands of illegal immigrants facing deportation! And these people are not just being deported because they are illegal, the Obama administration no longer does this, they were going to be deported because they committed a crime, not because they were driving without a license. How many abusers were let go? This administration is so hypocritical. Also CD are women?????? Lesbian are women, but are they being abused by their male partners?? Under the guise of Violence Against Women, they pass anything, no matter how incoherent! And if men are being abused by women, well there are battery laws, and state laws! In any event this has nothing to do with the purpose of the law. And finally it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Good Grief!
If non native men are attacking native women, they should be handed over to the tribal judgment! Otherwise, they are getting away with abuse, which has been much documented. And even if illegal, ANYONE attacked or abused, man or woman, should know that they will have the protection of the federal law. This is CIVIL RIGHTS we are talking about, Juan! And it is the fault of the GOP that illegal immigrants who have committed crimes are being released, since they have blackmailed the American people with their loony Tea Party demands! Just as some states deny science and teach religion in science classes, some states do not protect people who are being attacked and abused. ONLY the federal government can insure civil rights for all!
Ron: As long as we’re talking about violence against women, how about we use it as the perfect opportunity to introduce anti-Sharia legislation??
Ron: Again , the sequester was and is Obama plan, he wanted and he owns it.So stop inventing GOP blackmail here. Plus there was no need to release anyone!!!!!! Federal agencies reported improper payments estimated at $125.4 billion in fiscal year 2010, an increase of $16.2 billion from the $109.2 billion estimate in fiscal 2009 according to the Government Accountability Office. The $125 billion in improper payments came from 70 different programs across 20 federal agencies. This estimate represents about 5.5 percent of the $2.3 trillion of reported outlays for the related programs in fiscal year 2010, according to the GAO. And finally how the hell can you justify liberating these criminals when this years budget, sequester included, is bigger than last years budget!!!!! Come on man, use your brains, think a little bit! We are going to spend more than last year, yet Armageddon is among us? $ 60 Billion was spent on the Sandy aid bill, of which by the way only $10 Billion went to the people that needed help, the rest went to pork! And you are going to stand there with a straight face and sustain that this sequester is the end of the world?
It is not the end of the world, but ORDINARY middle class and poor people will be hurt. You and I will not be hurt, except maybe for inconvenience, but I CARE about those less fortunate than myself, and you obviously, could not care less! That is what separates your philosophical beliefs from mine. Without wanting to invoke religion, “There but for the grace of God go I!” We should never be so cocky as to believe that we will never be the victims of discrimination, prejudice, and will never be in financial or health stress, so that is why I believe ALL AMERICANS, no matter what their station in life, are entitled to health care and to dignity!
And yes, Muslims should NOT be allowed in this nation to abuse women or children in the name of their religious beliefs. When it comes to criminal activity, no religion should stand in the way of human rights in America!
How on earth will not spending 2 cents out of every dollar spent hurt people?? How is it logically possible when the government is spending more than last year even with the sequester?? It’s irrational! Specially when wasteful spending at least triples the amount of the sequester. If Obama is not capable of cutting where it “won’t” hurt, having all the power over his bureaucracy to slash wasteful spending then he should resign. This is Obama’s worst week,even the liberal media , those with class, which are few by the way, called his bluff. So go ahead and believe Maxine Waters ” 170 millions jobs will be lost’!!!! LOL!!!!!
Well, I do NOT admire Maxine Waters, but she is no worse than many loony GOPers such as Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn.
I think it’s just a matter of a political party, the Republican Party, not wanting a Democratic president to have positive impact on the nation with meaningful legislation. Much of that has been the case since Barack Obama officially became the 44th president of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009. (Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has been motivated by this. It would be naive to just merely consider it a “difference between the ideologies of the two major parties.”)