Note: forwarded message attached. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Friends,
More information not generally available to the public.
Jim Hardin
The Freedom Page
http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com
To receive Freedom Page mail, put "Subscribe"
as subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be removed, put "Remove" as subject.
Alabama Committee To Get Us Out of the UN
http://themustardseed.home.mindspring.com
From: Clarence H Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: VAWA Tests the Limits of Federal Power
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:33:48 EST
Subject: VAWA Tests the Limits of Federal Power
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VAWA Tests the Limits of Federal Power
December 1, 1999
With President Clinton issuing a blizzard of overreaching executive orders
and Congress federalizing hundreds of crimes that are properly in the
jurisdiction of the states, we must depend on the Supreme Court to stand for
the Constitutional principles of federalism. The chief reason Americans have
retained their liberties through two centuries of governance by power-seeking
politicians is the separation of power between the states and the federal
government, and then among the three branches.
The case that puts this to the test is Brzonkala v. Morrison, which is before
the Court in the current session. It tests the constitutionality of the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed in 1994 under feminist pressure in
the wake of the much-ballyhooed Tailhook incident.
Ordinarily the lack of actual and credible complaints, evidence or
convictions would preclude million-dollar lawsuits over private conduct. But
VAWA allows for attorneys' fees and punitive damages for alleged violence
that was never reported to the police, let alone proven in criminal court.
VAWA's Section 13981 expressly states that "a prior criminal complaint,
prosecution, or conviction" is not required in order to recover "compensatory
and punitive damages." Plaintiffs can go into federal court seeking millions
of dollars by alleging violence without ever alerting the police that a crime
may have taken place.
Real violence should be reported to the police in order to enable credible
investigation and prevention of recurrence of the violence. Federal law
should not provide financial incentives to bypass police investigations.
Plaintiffs should not be allowed to sue in civil court on claims embellished
by allegations of violence without independent and timely investigation by
local law enforcement. VAWA's Section 13981 creates such incentives for new
federal lawsuits alleging crimes long after the relevant state statute of
limitations has expired.
In attempting to create a new federal cause of action for monetary damages,
VAWA relies on the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. If
upheld, VAWA would be an extraordinary and unprecedented extension of federal
power into the areas of domestic violence and family law.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce
in order to ensure the free flow of goods and services. Domestic violence has
absolutely nothing to do with commerce or the flow of goods.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to protect citizens
against state violations of their rights. However, VAWA attempts to reach
private conduct completely removed from any state action.
The federal government should not be undermining state criminal laws. No one
is helped when violence against women is trivialized into allowing law firms
to strategize over how to make the most money from an ugly situation.
The specific facts alleged in the Brzonkala case were, indeed, ugly. But this
case is about trying to recover a large judgment in federal court by alleging
a rape that was not promptly reported to the police.
When money, rather than criminal justice, is the name of the game, the courts
and the public are unable to sift fact from fiction. Under VAWA's approach,
real criminals will go free while the falsely accused will be subjected to
financial and reputational ruin.
Congress has no constitutional basis for regulating marriage or domestic
relations. It is neither constitutional nor prudent for Congress to impose
its one-size-fits-all view of domestic relations on the states.
VAWA's attempt to federalize issues such as rape, spousal rape, spousal
immunity, and other aspects of domestic relations would open the door for
Congress to federalize marriage itself. If VAWA's Section 13981 is upheld,
there would be no logical basis to prevent Congress from regulating marriage,
alimony, child custody and other aspects of family law.
Just as Congress should not impose a uniform federal remedy for murder,
Congress should not impose a uniform federal remedy for domestic violence. It
is foolish to pretend, as VAWA implicitly does, that a perpetrator of a
violent rape will be deterred by the threat of a future lawsuit to recover
money.
Real violence is restrained by law enforcement, not by civil lawsuits. VAWA
is an unconstitutional infringement on state jurisdiction over marriage and
domestic relations. A "War on Domestic Violence," like the "War on Drugs,"
does not justify suspension of the Constitution in the process.
A Christian Patriot
Hosea 4:6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for what the Bible says about Christians and Civil Government? Pastor John Weaver covers this and much more. Audio tapes are only $4.00 each. Just click: http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/johnweaver.html
