Advertisements
Notifications
Clear all

The VAWA was unconstituional from the get go--  

 

The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1865
28/12/2018 1:55 am  

I didn't want to usurp Pheonixgod's post on the VAWA with a lengthy legal analysis so I'll do here:

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


No. 99—5. Argued January 11, 2000–Decided May 15, 20001


Petitioner Brzonkala filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that she was raped by respondents while the three were students at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and that this attack violated 42 U.S.C. § 13981 which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim and that §13981’s civil remedy is unconstitutional. Petitioner United States intervened to defend the section’s constitutionality. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court held that it stated a claim against respondents, but that Congress lacked authority to enact §13981 under either §8 of the Commerce Clause or §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for §13981. The en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Held:  Section 13981 cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause or §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 7—28.

(a) The Commerce Clause does not provide Congress with authority to enact §13981’s federal civil remedy. A congressional enactment will be invalidated only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 568, 577—578. Petitioners assert that §13981 can be sustained under Congress’ commerce power as a regulation of activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The proper framework for analyzing such a claim is provided by the principles the Court set out in Lopez. First, in Lopez, the noneconomic, criminal nature of possessing a firearm in a school zone was central to the Court’s conclusion that Congress lacks authority to regulate such possession. Similarly, gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity. Second, like the statute at issue in Lopez, §13981 contains no jurisdictional element establishing that the federal cause of action is in pursuance of Congress’ regulation of interstate commerce. Although Lopez makes clear that such a jurisdictional element would lend support to the argument that §13981 is sufficiently tied to interstate commerce to come within Congress’ authority, Congress elected to cast §13981’s remedy over a wider, and more purely intrastate, body of violent crime. Third, although §13981, unlike the Lopez statute, is supported by numerous findings regarding the serious impact of gender-motivated violence on victims and their families, these findings are substantially weakened by the fact that they rely on reasoning that this Court has rejected, namely a but-for causal chain from the initial occurrence of violent crime to every attenuated effect upon interstate commerce. If accepted, this reasoning would allow Congress to regulate any crime whose nationwide, aggregated impact has substantial effects on employment, production, transit, or consumption. Moreover, such reasoning will not limit Congress to regulating violence, but may be applied equally as well to family law and other areas of state regulation since the aggregate effect of marriage, divorce, and childrearing on the national economy is undoubtedly significant. The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Pp. 7—19.

(b)  Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which permits Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the constitutional guarantee that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process or deny any person equal protection of the laws, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517, also does not give Congress the authority to enact §13981. Petitioners’ assertion that there is pervasive bias in various state justice systems against victims of gender-motivated violence is supported by a voluminous congressional record. However, the Fourteenth Amendment places limitations on the manner in which Congress may attack discriminatory conduct. Foremost among them is the principle that the Amendment prohibits only state action, not private conduct. This was the conclusion reached in United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, and the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, which were both decided shortly after the Amendment’s adoption. The force of the doctrine of stare decisis behind these decisions stems not only from the length of time they have been on the books, but also from the insight attributable to the Members of the Court at that time, who all had intimate knowledge and familiarity with the events surrounding the Amendment’s adoption. Neither United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, nor District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, casts any doubt on the enduring vitality of the Civil Rights Cases and Harris. Assuming that there has been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities in this case, it would not be enough to save §13981’s civil remedy, which is directed not at a State or state actor but at individuals who have committed criminal acts motivated by gender bias. Section 13981 visits no consequence on any Virginia public official involved in investigating or prosecuting Brzonkala’s assault, and it is thus unlike any of the §5 remedies this Court has previously upheld. See e.g., South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301. Section 13981 is also different from previously upheld remedies in that it applies uniformly throughout the Nation, even though Congress’ findings indicate that the problem addressed does not exist in all, or even most, States. In contrast, the §5 remedy in Katzenbach was directed only to those States in which Congress found that there had been discrimination. Pp. 19—27.

169 F.3d 820, affirmed.    Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined, and in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined as to Part I—A.


Quote
Itsallbs
Confused
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 584
28/12/2018 11:38 am  

Correct me if I'm wrong ( I'm not legally trained beyond UK contract law), are there not a long list of laws/treaties/acts in the USA that are in direct conflict with your constitution?

It'sallbs | Leave means Leave| UK owes the EU £0 and must pay £0| £60 billion for the privilege of being avassal state? As a previous PM once said NO,NO,NO


ReplyQuote
MG-ɹǝʍo┴
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2887
28/12/2018 1:11 pm  
Posted by: The Evaluator

Correct me if I'm wrong ( I'm not legally trained beyond UK contract law), are there not a long list of laws/treaties/acts in the USA that are in direct conflict with your constitution?

I can answer that! 

YES!

The constitution (in a liberal socialist Marxist environment) is a living breathing MONSTER of EPIC PROPORTIONS!  


ReplyQuote
Itsallbs
Confused
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 584
28/12/2018 1:43 pm  

I seem to remember there were some who argued that NAFTA was in breach of article 3 of your constitution.

It'sallbs | Leave means Leave| UK owes the EU £0 and must pay £0| £60 billion for the privilege of being avassal state? As a previous PM once said NO,NO,NO


ReplyQuote
The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1865
28/12/2018 4:17 pm  

Article III of the Constitution deals with the powers of the Judiciary so I don't know what that would have to do with NAFTA? 


ReplyQuote
Itsallbs
Confused
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 584
28/12/2018 6:02 pm  

Something to do with NAFTA's panel review system I think.

Also isn't NAFTA a treaty & therefore has to be approved by 2 3rds of the senate?

when in fact it was passed by an executive agreement

I think that's article 2

( I don't know much about US law)

 I find NAFTA quite interesting as I suspect the ultimate goal they had was similar to that of the EU-a free trade agreement (really protectionist racket)is where it starts.

It'sallbs | Leave means Leave| UK owes the EU £0 and must pay £0| £60 billion for the privilege of being avassal state? As a previous PM once said NO,NO,NO


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
04/01/2019 10:24 am  

Evil genius wrote:  Article III of the Constitution deals with the powers of the Judiciary so I don't know what that would have to do with NAFTA?

We cannot have free trade without privateering.  The Maritime loving judiciary is keen on keeping themselves away from any checks and balances. 

Privateering  thrives under a military administrative justice system.  My Bible says to rejoice when you go through trials.

The right to face your accuser and have your evidence heard  exist for those with money  only.

Murdock vs Penn  set a supreme court opinion that rights in this country are for everyone not just those who can pay their way..

Administering justice without evidence or even victims has become the norm.  Its PIRACY on land.

Extortion and usury.  They pass a law requiring you to become their targets, then shoot blindfolded and laugh.

Some should hang.   

L&R

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
Machiavelli
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 331
04/01/2019 8:33 pm  

The UK equivalents including the UK rape laws are also in breach of the UK unwritten constitution.

It's the Rule of Law which includes the principle of Equality before the law, that the same laws apply equally to everyone is a cornerstone of the UK constitution.

The court judgement and statute on rape is unconstitutional, because it breaches that principle. So, do all the invent violence against women and girls laws / policies and special handouts.

And they have the audacity to wonder why we call them corrupt. The Rule of Law is a corner stone of any civilised society and should never ever be undermined. Not for any reason. Never.


ReplyQuote
The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1865
05/01/2019 2:09 am  

Machiavelli makes a great point. England at one time had two court systems---courts of law and courts of equity and at the time there was not a written codex of law, rather there was the common law which in simple terms is a vast collection of previous decisions which have the binding effect of precedence.  But as Cicero noted 

"In his dialogue De Legibus (On the Laws, 52 B.C.), he talked about the supreme law which existed through the ages, before the mention of any written law or established state. He also referred to it as the law of nature for the source of right. In De Republica (The Republic, 51 B.C.) he says True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting . . . there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties . . ."


ReplyQuote
Machiavelli
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 331
05/01/2019 7:53 am  

Thanks for that Evil Genius, that's very helpful.

We seem to have come full circle and in place of the "divine right of kings" we've now got the divine right of princesses who think they are above the law and can go around making up laws to benefit themselves.

History tells us how that works out sooner or later.

More history and information on the Rule of Law here for anyone interested:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

 


ReplyQuote
The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1865
05/01/2019 7:57 am  

Chastise the guilty---its a wild dream! But one I fear will go unfulfilled 


ReplyQuote
Advertisements
Scroll Up