Violence Against the Constitution Act (VAWA): Et Tu, Ayotte?

Earlier this evening, Steve pointed out the unintentional consequences of the “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA), which included giving unconstitutional jurisdiction over non-tribal matters to tribal courts, and (could we call it the Menendez clause?) decriminalizing child prostitution!

What I find more interesting, if Heritage thinks the law is a bad idea, and we think McKluster was foolish to vote for it, then what do we call a ‘conservative’ senator who joins forces with a Vermont socialist to promote the bill, and boasts about its passage?

You see, it’s not just that an act of Congress (it is not a law) is ill advised, has side effects which could be bad for the intended beneficiaries, and messes with the tribal courts. No, the real damage of acts like this is to the fabric of the constitution itself: By creating Federal jurisdiction over police matters which should be, and usually are, already covered by state law, acts like VAWA insert the Federal government into more and more aspects of our lives.

CLUE: If most Democrats support a proposed act, you should very carefully evaluate its constitutionality before climbing aboard, and be especially careful of posing with a committed socialist to urge passage. ‘Growing’ in office, is usually a bad thing for Republicans, and this is no exception.

If we still lived in a REPUBLIC, the states would be recalling their appointed Senators over power grabs like VAWA.