Democrats and Republicans: Co-conspirators in shredding the Constitution
The Violence Against Men Act is coming up to be renewed. It is technically called the Violence Against Women Act, but as with almost every law that is passed by Congress, its real intentions are hidden by a mask of bovine scatology.
The law was first enacted in 1994. Recently the Philadelphia Inquirer had an editorial calling for extension of the Violence Against Women Act. It said recent headlines such as “Stabbing Victim feared estranged husband would kill her,” demanded the extension.
Hello?
Granted if you are on the editorial staff of the Philadelphia Examiner, it probably means you are brain dead, but at the time they wrote their editorial, the Violence Against Women Act had been in effect for 18 years. If the law was not enough to “protect” these victims, what is renewing it going to do?
The renewal is not simply a reauthorization of the law; it is an expansion of the law. It adds much more to the original law.
From Red State:
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.
This is insanely Orwellian. “Emotional Distress” and “unpleasant speech?”
The Violence Against Women Act really is a gravy train for feminist groups. Funding goes to these groups as well as to state and local governments. The results of this bill have been appalling.
As a result of VAWA, states have been bribed to create a system of new restraining orders for “domestic violence.” These are given out like candy at Halloween. Women take out 90% or more of these. Some judges call these a poor man’s divorce.
When the man finds out his wife or significant other has taken out the restraining order, the divorce is already over. He just does not know it yet. These orders, which are handed out ex-parte, which means only one of the parties is able to see the judge without the other knowing about it, not only restrain the other party from coming around, they also award the home, custody of the children, set child support and spousal support. In short, the game is over before the man even gets to step into a courtroom.
Thanks to VAWA, some divorce lawyers tell their clients to call the police the morning they are ready to file for divorce. With mandatory arrest policies courtesy of VAWA, the man will go to jail, usually for a mandatory “cooling off” period. Meanwhile, not only is the restraining order issued that basically decides all of the issues of the divorce, the wife has the chance to clean out the bank accounts.
What is shockingly missing from the demands that VAWA be renewed is any proof that this boondoggle does anything other than spend money. The left simply thinks that we should enact a law because they have given it a dramatic name.
In the Senate, the bill already has 60 co-sponsors. The Republicans are too afraid to stand up against a bad bill because they fear in an election year the “war against women” meme could be used against them.
Does every member of Congress and the Senate have their backbone and their brain removed before assuming office?
Here is a shocking secret. The criminal justice system worked just fine before VAWA. I was a prosecuting attorney both before and after VAWA was enacted. Domestic violence cases existed before 1994 and were successfully prosecuted. After 1994, we saw an uptick in Domestic Violence cases. Why? Because as a result of VAWA, states were bribed to enact mandatory arrest policies. Prior to 1994 and the mandatory arrest policies, if the police went to a domestic and there were no injuries and no one wanted to prosecute, the cops would usually leave with a warning, “if we have to come back, someone is going to jail.”
Now, with the mandatory arrest policies that have been pushed by VAWA and the radical feminazis who support VAWA, police officers believe they must make an arrest if they go to a domestic call.
What is the end result?
Many people, who should never be arrested, are arrested. Some of those end up being convicted. They are convicted, not because they are guilty but because by pleading guilty they can get out of jail.
The VAWA reauthorization will pass the Senate. John Boehner has allegedly promised that he would bring it up for a vote. Call your Congressman today ask them to oppose VAWA and to ask John Boehner not to bring it up for a vote in the House of Representatives.
VAWA has nothing to do with stopping domestic violence. It has everything to do with funding feminist groups and creating Orwellian crimes.
It is a terrible law that should never be reauthorized.
Tags: act, against, reauthorization, violence, women
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on -
A preacher, Matthew Winkler, in southwestern Tennessee was shot to death by his wife. She was acquitted on murder charges. She shot her sleeping husband in the back with a shotgun, because she claimed he was verbally abusive of her habit of giving all of their money away in that Nigerian email scam. She may be the only person to have actually fallen for that ruse. Now she has gotten away with murder. She was charged with first degree murder, but was convicted for only manslaughter...for which she served only 67 days (in a prison hospital). She also got custody of all three of their kids! Her name is Mary Winkler...
PS - The preacher was a friend of mine!
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Angle on -
Sounds like the Ohio criminal justice system.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on
-
There's a lot of this sort of thing going on...but the press doesn't talk about it...it's not on their agenda.
-
Permalink Reply by Longtimer on -
it seems to be universal.... the deeper their roots in Washington.. living the Beltway Bubble life... the shallower their grounding in home affairs and downright common sense. Remember Term Limits in 1994? Time for a Reprise or rebirth of that notion...
-
Permalink Reply by John S Bacsenko IV on -
Hey, Judson.......on a side note.......The Philadelphia Inquirer was just bought by 6 investors........one being George Norcross of New Jersey fame........The Democrat party 'boss' in south Jersey. It can only serve to get more blindingly twisted by liberalism (if that's possible) in the coming months.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymond Greenway on -
Bottem line is that lawyers are the ones pushing this so that they can make more money. Lawyers for women to file for the divorce and lawyers for men when their wives call the cops. As for the act itself, we already have that act in place, the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately libs hate that ammendment very much and want it gone.
-
Permalink Reply by Edward Frankele on
-
Mr. Judson Phillips,
Please remember that Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution notes, "The United States SHALL GUARANTEE to every STATE in this UNION a REPUBLICAN form of Government, and SHALL Protect each of them a against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence"; and etc.
It should also be noted that the National Education group (and/or Agency) (unconstitutional) has class lessons for the STATES that teaches the students that We have a "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY" NOT A REPUBLIC. One definition for "Republic" is a government that functions under the "Rule of Law". Article VI notes, "This Constitution, and the Laws MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the the Authority of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and etc. Congress the courts and the executive all appear to be working together as a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, because no one in D.C. is following the Constitution and/or giving my State my guaranteed REPUBLIC. We should start screaming at them that we want our REPUBLIC and not their stupid, unconstitutional Representative Democracy.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna F. Fallis on
-
Ug, the only reason this is relevant now is that Democrats are trying to prove they are on the woman's side. Any woman that would vote for a Democrat doesn't deserve protection. She needs to be locked up for the sake of her children. I'm sick of hearing that they care about anything. Politicians, as a whole, care about votes and pay back.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken on
-
The war on women facade promigated by the slime demorats failed. It blew up in their faces. Now they are trying an end run to get the light off their failure.
-
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on
-
Thank you
-
Permalink Reply by Virginia Gomez on -
I CALLED MY REPRESENTATIVES AND TOLD THEM TO OPPOSE THE REAUTHORIZATION OF VAWA!
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Ronald W. Cutburth on
-
I need a reason to get my neighbor arrested. He did not buy a Chevy volt as ordered by comrad O.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
