Next ‘War on Women’ Showdown Looms Over VAWA Reauthorization
Acting Associate Attorney General for the Department of Justice Tony West told reporters that 76 percent of those living on reservations now are not American Indian. “Without an act of Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-Indian,” even if they live on a reservation married to an Indian, he said.
The Leahy-Crapo bill “provides tribes with authority to hold perpetrators accountable” for crimes of domestic violence, sexual crimes, and violations of protection orders, West said. They would not be able to prosecute for a crime in which neither party had any ties to the tribe.
“We certainly think the Leahy-Crapo bill is consistent with our overall federal law enforcement scheme,” he said.
The administration cited statistics showing that rates of domestic violence against Native American women are now among the highest in the United States.
“The bill builds on the Tribal Law and Order Act – which President Obama signed on July 29, 2010 – to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of tribal justice systems and will provide additional tools to tribal and Federal prosecutors to address domestic violence in Indian country,” the Office of Management and Budget said this week.
Republican complaints against the VAWA, though, ranged from an overstepping of federal power to the requirements placed on funding to states.
“Everyone agrees that violence against women is reprehensible,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said. “The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization has the honorable goal of assisting victims of domestic violence, but it oversteps the Constitution’s rightful limits on federal power, it interferes with the flexibility states and localities should have in tailoring programs to meet particular needs of individual communities, and it fails to address problems of duplication and inefficiency.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) voted “no” on the Hutchison-Grassley language because of “strong concerns” about a provision that would require a minimum level of funds be allocated to sexual assault, which would “divert funding away from current domestic violence programs without evidence that the increased funding will result in enhanced prosecutions or additional cases reported.”
Rubio voted against the Leahy-Crapo bill for the same reason. “Furthermore, it would give the Justice Department greater power in determining how funds are used at the state level, taking decision-making out of the hands of the state-based coalitions on the ground who know best about how to serve their communities,” he said, adding that he wants reauthorization of VAWA as it is currently written and hopes to vote for the bill when it emerges from the House-Senate conference.
The House bill is expected to look similar to the Hutchison-Grassley version, and pass in a Republican-controlled chamber.
“There is only one real Violence Against Women Act authorization,” Leahy said before the vote on that version. “This is not it.”
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), vice chair of the House Republican Conference, and other GOP leaders announced yesterday that they were putting the finishing touches on their own reauthorization, to be introduced by House Judiciary Committee member and domestic violence survivor Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.).
“The Violence Against Women Act is a critical tool for stopping domestic violence and sexual assault, and supporting the victims of these crimes – and House Republicans believe it must be renewed,” McMorris Rodgers said. “This week, we are introducing a five-year reauthorization of this law and it’s our hope that it can be passed quickly in a bipartisan fashion – as it’s always been done in the past.”
When asked if President Obama would veto a House GOP version if it emerged from conference victorious, Jarrett said she wouldn’t speculate on that.
The original VAWA was authored by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who hailed the upper chamber’s passage of the reauthorization today.
“This law has been overwhelmingly successful since it was first enacted 17 years ago to improve the criminal justice response to this violent crime and to assist those who experience this abuse,” Biden said. “Since then, the law has twice been reauthorized with the broad support of members of both parties. It should still be bigger than politics today.”
Does anyone else out there think Valerie Jarrett is a really weird looking little lady?
Most progressive liberal women do look weird. That is why they are angry all of the time!
Most most modern, independent, progressive women don’t take their husband’s name when marrying, and certainly don’t retain it after divorce; but then Valerie’s ex-husband is the son of Vernon Jarret, radical black journalist and, of course, go-to CPUSA member- …seems to trump basic feminism.
Couldn’t your comment be considered violence?
Uh, this is all very fascinating, but is it still a fact the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has not offered a Budget for our fiscally-insane federal Leviathan for what, three years now? Why would any sensible American citizen give a flying F about this VAWA Reauthorization crap? This is nothing but cheap-seats politics. Meanwhile, our national solvency lies in the balance! And I mean ACTUALLY. These derelict senators should be SHOT!
I still can’t understand Demublicans who support this kind of legislation, yet hate the Patriot Act. And, vice versa, for what it’s worth. VAWA is an unconstitutional disgrace.
Yeah, where does Congress get the police power to enforce legislation covering violence against anybody? I suspect this is covered by a thin veneer of Civil Rights, but it sure seems to step on state police power. Oh well, I guess we lost that battle long ago.
That battle was lost a hundred years ago, when governors of Southern states themselves asked the FBI to intervene to stop the Ku Klux Klan. And when kidnappers would transport their victims across state lines. And drug traffickers, and all sorts of other criminals that operated interstate.
Indeed, that was one rationale for the creation of the FBI.
More recently, it took National Guard troops to enforce desegregation of the South.
Exactly.
It flouts “equal protection of the law”.
fyi, somebody was getting concerned that too many American men were going overseas for wives, so the feminists started attaching a rider to the v.a.w.a. late in the night before signing, called i.m.b.r.a., the int’l marriage broker act. the excuse for it is that American men are just too violent and can’t be trusted to date whomever we want. what it requires us to do is criminal, and could lead to us getting really hurt, financially. it requires us to tell the foreign women EVERYTHING about us, so much that we could easily become targets of i.d. theft. i can’t give out the info. because of where i have lived and worked, as well as the i.d. theft thing. the u.s. is the only country that has this law. it also makes it very expen$ive, which effectively takes overseas dating out of most mens life, which was the intent of the bill. nice bunch, these feminists.
The root cause is that they, themselves cannot understand that they will never be happy. Not so long as they cannot grasp their own fundamental mental problems, be they “daddy issues” or “mommy issues” or that they’re one UGLY-looking human-being with a penchant for a bad attitude.
So, why WOULDN’T they want further control over how men behave?
I have been divorced since 2001 and in that time, I have dated many women with most of them looking for 1)a guy with a decent paycheck who 2)does whatever they want them to, while they, themselves feel no need to be accountable and 3) that they generally aren’t too pleased with men overall because we refuse to “obey” them and cede to their moody whims.
Even early in relationships, I’ve run into the mind-reader problem. That is, I cannot readily identify what it is they’re sore about without further information, with they’re acting as though I should be more attuned to their every mood, as listed in some magazine’s psychobabble BS. That’s usually the time I make myself scarce and go about doing my own thing. I have no time for such juvenile behavior.
As for American women, I have learned that even the most right-wing woman subscribes to the notion that men are “brain-damaged” somehow and two themes prevail: 1) The need to “change” the man..make him better…improve and mold and reshape him to something “better”. 2) Enjoy his company as a “friend” but for romps and slap & tickle, go to the sleazebag guy with a crappy attitude but the dangerous good looks. Yet, when confronted, you get the baby-blues “What are you talking about” look.
Women…here’s a tip. You’re no better at hiding your goings on than guys are. You’re not smarter than guys, either. In fact, the inherent distrust my generation of women display towards men is very off-putting and it’s no wonder men go overseas seeking females who aren’t all wrapped around the axle about it.
And, it’s also no wonder that feminazis have taken more control over men, due to their own dissatisfaction with their own lives and personalities. Yet, even this latest “score” will not satisfy their intense self-hatred. Their own denial of how mammals behave is stark. Loyalty, trust, fidelity are two-way streets, not just something the “man is responsible for”.
Then, the ongoing, created narrative that “men are pigs”. Some are but there is an equal number of women who are. I looked at my grandparents, aunts and uncles and the long-term marriages they all enjoyed. None of them were “pigs”. Nor were the men emasculated metrosexuals “in touch with their feminine side”. They were as loyal, caring, giving and tolerant of their wives as their wives were of them. Give and take, some sense of humor was required. Angry moments occurred but seldom lasted very long.
The “good old days”? Maybe but they definitely had something. Today’s bra-burners would love to romp all over it and claim how “oppressed” the women were, but during the 60′s they would come right out and say, “I don’t feel oppressed” and all the female members in my family worked, as did the men. In case you missed it, in the 1960′s.
Even I have considered looking overseas for a potential mate but…what scares me is the US citizenship ordeal and being used just for that. When people really want something, they will do anything to get it.
Civil Disobedience time….
that or go overseas and not come back
I already live abroad, and it’s worse. The things the Left hides in the US, they say openly elsewhere. Things like “women need special priveleges to ensure equality”, or “evil capitalism” or “the LEft needs to run the media, the universities, and the courts”. Limited government? What’s that? And thi s in a country that has largely rejected socialism.
(On the other hand, we have to balance our budget.)
Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones Talks About Transforming Society
http://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=TnDxzvc0OXk
Thank you, sweet man chat Btaay Almighty Look
“Rubio voted against the Leahy-Crapo bill for the same reason. “Furthermore, it would give the Justice Department greater power in determining how funds are used at the state level, taking decision-making out of the hands of the state-based coalitions on the ground who know best about how to serve their communities,” he said, adding that he wants reauthorization of VAWA as it is currently written and hopes to vote for the bill when it emerges from the House-Senate conference.”
This is why you have to like a guy like Rubio. He’s one of the few people in Congress who bothers to think about how a Federal law will affect a state. Putting more power into the hands of the Justice Department and taking it away from states, who have a better idea on how to spend funds and protect their own citizens, is only a recipe for disaster. Too often the Federal government just ignores the needs of the states and that’s how you end up with disasters like Obamacare. Good for Rubio for pointing that out.
thanks and great article