Is Ann Kuster Happy We Violated the US Constitution?

by Steve MacDonald

Ann Kuster is excited that the House Republicans decided not to change the Senate version of the Violence Against Women’s act.    I’m not sure what the House had in mind but Tax dodger Ann Kuster is happy to assume it’s because they hate women.

What a difference a day makes! On Wednesday, Speaker Boehner had big plans to limit the protections for women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. Apparently, House Republicans believe that some women – namely lesbians, immigrants and Native Americans – do not deserve equal protection under the law.

Problem.  This bill violates the US constitution in it’s effort to protect women from domestic and sexual violence.

Heritage dissects the details but here’s the synopsis.

The bill would authorize Indian tribal courts to adjudicate certain domestic violence criminal charges against non-Indians and to enter a final judgment authorizing the confinement of convicted offenders. At present, tribal courts cannot exercise that authority because, as the Supreme Court held in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe in 1978, tribal courts lack criminal authority over non-Indians.

Oliphant said that Congress could empower tribal courts to adjudicate criminal charges against non-Indians, but to do so, it must pass legislation giving tribal courts that power. Congress could do that by passing VAWA, but the problem with the Senate version of the legislation is that it violates Articles II and III of the Constitution in the process.

Any Tribal court that tries to exercise this unlawful authority could expect to find itself on the way to Federal Court or even the  Supreme court, complete with all the costs and time associated with such a journey, at the end of which they might find that the White man (and woman) has just screwed them again.

Personally, men who beat or abuse women are at the top of my sh*t list next to people who abuse children.   If there is a hole in the law that allows people to get away with either I’m happy to support legitimate efforts to correct that.  But Ann Kuster (and very likely everyone else cranking out the Democrat fund raising form letter-o-false victory) thinks they just won a battle in defense of women.  A noble cause.   But all congress really did is set a trap.  A trap Kuster is using to bash Republicans and raise campaign money.  And guess what?  Whoever you are, you helped.

But you made a difference. Your voice was heard. Thank you for joining our petition to protect women across America from violence.Today, the House voted to defeat the GOP bill and instead to pass, overwhelmingly, the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act.

Yes we did.

Annie

PS: I hate to ask but we are facing a big deadline tonight, can you chip in a few dollars and help us meet this vital deadline today? (Link removed)

So is Ann Kuster happy we Violated the US Constitution and set a trap for the tribal courts?  I doubt she has the slightest clue. Nor do I think she cares.   She just want’s to hear the electronic clink of digital silver in her little virtual tin cup.

Note: I have not seen the House version.  If anyone has a link, I’d love to know why House Republicans joined the senate in approving this mess.

Leave a Comment

  • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

    It’s much more basic – since the powers not explicitly delegated belong to the states, including the police powers, ANY federal act criminalizing behavior which should properly be regulated by the sovereign states is unconstitutional on its face.
    Setting the jurisdiction of one court or another may well be a proper matter for Congress, but VAWA is NOT.
    As Steve says, violence against women and children is heinous and deserves to be punished by a long sentence and a short life in the general population of a state prison. How does that work? Put a diddler or wife-beater in the general population, and sure as there is honor among thieves, he will die soon – the long sentence just improves the chances of that ‘unfortunate event’ :)

    SO, It’s not whether it’s ‘for the women’, it’s whether the act (not a law) is constitutional!

    • nhsteve

      Its a trap!

  • Pingback: Did Ann Kuster vote to effectively legalize child prostitution and then fund raises on the vote? — GraniteGrok

Previous post:

Next post: