House Republicans SUCCEED in KILLING the "Violence Against Women Act"

[Blue3]

Maybe it's what they really wanted all along...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do they even justify this?

They think it's better to have no VAWA at all, than have the same protections for Native American, immigrant, and LGBT people?  Do they think it's fine to abuse Native Americans, immigrants, and LGBT people? They think they're second-class citizens? Or did they just raise objections because they wanted the VAWA to expire all along?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

cite?

[Frodo]

cite?

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/02/congress-lets-violence-against-women-act-wither-away/

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I suppose it doesn't matter that the Senate didn't take up the House version of the reauthorization either?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Were the programs provided by VAMA extended to men who were victims of domestic violence as well?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Bill designation?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

[Benj]

Were the programs provided by VAMA extended to men who were victims of domestic violence as well?

Yes, otherwise it would have been blatantly unconstitutional.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Were the programs provided by VAMA extended to men who were victims of domestic violence as well?

Yes, otherwise it would have been blatantly unconstitutional.

Well, part of the bill was struck down as unconstitutional.

Congrats GOP, on continuing to alienate the growing demographics.

[Benj]

Were the programs provided by VAMA extended to men who were victims of domestic violence as well?

Yes, otherwise it would have been blatantly unconstitutional.

Well, part of the bill was struck down as unconstitutional.

Congrats GOP, on continuing to alienate the growing demographics.

Not on equal protection grounds, though. On (failure to meet) the commerce clause.

[pbrower2a]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

...or when it involves the mail or electronic communications generally understood to be federal concerns, military personnel or bases, federally0insured banks, or federal property or reservations. A letter, telegram, telephone call, or e-mail message involved in spouse abuse could be a federal offense. So would interstate travel to commit violence against an estranged spouse.

The federal system usually yields to state governments because state offenses are usually more severe than the federal offense. Prime example: many FBI cases involve "interstate flight to evade prosecution". The FBI gets relatively few convictions for that offense because interstate flight is usually not done for its own sake.  So someone who committed an armed  robbery in Michigan who gets caught by the FBI in California is likely to get convicted, if at all, for the armed robbery in Michigan and a 25-to-life term in Michigan which makes the federal charge of interstate flight a triviality.

I figure that a large number of the offenders in federal penitentiaries are for either mail fraud or wire fraud that can't be tied to a particular state. 

...The 112th Congress is arguably the worst Congress in decades largely because of the extreme positions of the Republican majority in the House. My expectations are much the same for the 113th.   

[minionofmidas]

How do they even justify this?

The bill criminalizes Republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The House GOP has been playing funny a little game for a few years now.

Everybody: "C'mon, this must be the worst they can do?"

House GOP: "No way! Watch this!"

[Marokai Backbeat]

The House GOP has been playing funny a little game for a few years now.

Everybody: "C'mon, this must be the worst they can do?"

House GOP: "No way! Watch this!"

And America continues to not punish them all that much for it.

[DC Al Fine]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

I wonder how many red avatars remember this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

I wonder how many red avatars remember this.

Would "I don't f**king give a sh*t about you States Rights bullsh*t" be a satisfactory answer?

[DC Al Fine]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

I wonder how many red avatars remember this.

Would "I don't f**king give a sh*t about you States Rights bullsh*t" be a satisfactory answer?

What an eloquent and well-reasoned argument

[Benj]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

I wonder how many red avatars remember this.

Would "I don't f**king give a sh*t about you States Rights bullsh*t" be a satisfactory answer?

What an eloquent and well-reasoned argument

Not any worse than the "States should have rights because.... *crickets*" argument.

[Donerail]

Why the heck does this need to be Federal law?  Crime should generally be a State matter unless there is some interstate activity involved.

I wonder how many red avatars remember this.

Would "I don't f**king give a sh*t about you States Rights bullsh*t" be a satisfactory answer?

What an eloquent and well-reasoned argument

Not any worse than the "States should have rights because.... *crickets*" argument.

Because that's how the American system of government as laid out in the Constitution works.

Anyways, this is good. The VAWA was bad law; IIRC it increased pretrial detention (potential 6th Amendment stuff there), and it mandated HIV testing if charged (not convicted, charged), which is an infringement on the right to privacy, while increasing penalties (yay for more people in our prison system) , and that's ignoring the federalism stuff from US v. Morrison.

[dead0man]

Color me confused, but what is wrong with our regular laws concerning violence?

[DC Al Fine]

Color me confused, but what is wrong with our regular laws concerning violence?

VAWA was less about punishing domestic abuse and more about providing funds and tools to prevent violence against women. Some of these measures have been controversial such as the rape shield law.

[dead0man]

So it's funding PR aimed at men telling them to not hit women?

I've now read the wiki on it all and while I find it a little sad that we need such things still, it isn't costing that much ($1.6B) and seems to be helping so I guess I'm for it.  The GOP's reasons to be against it are lame.

[ilikeverin]

So it's funding PR aimed at men telling them to not hit women?

I've now read the wiki on it all and while I find it a little sad that we need such things still, it isn't costing that much ($1.6B) and seems to be helping so I guess I'm for it.  The GOP's reasons to be against it are lame.

I don't think anyone disagrees that it's sad that we need it, but, well, we still need it, unfortunately