If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Senate Democrats get their 60 votes for the Violence Against Women Act. Subby's not sure if this warrants a "spiffy" tag for the vote or a "sad" tag for the fact that 60 votes were needed to break a GOP filibuster   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 571
    More: Spiffy, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, Democrats, senate democrats, Jerry Moran, House Republicans, Dean Heller, domestic violence  
•       •       •

10818 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



571 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 04:21:55 PM
this thread is causing my eyebrows to climb completely over my head and onto the back of my neck
 
2013-02-01 04:22:10 PM

Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?


I think that some people feel that the law promotes a feminist agenda and doesn't do enough to address the causes of domestic violence against women.

Some also feel that it ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared and viewed as violent  and abusive and all women are viewed as victims.

Some also think that the law generates a frequent denial of civil liberties to those that are accused of domestic violence.

Finally, I think that some believe that there is no evidence that the act has lessened the incidence of domestic violence and that it is a huge waste of money.

Some believe this.  Not me.  Some.
 
2013-02-01 04:22:23 PM

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.


Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.
 
2013-02-01 04:22:49 PM

Jackson Herring: this thread is causing my eyebrows to climb completely over my head and onto the back of my neck


Those might be caterpillars.
 
2013-02-01 04:22:49 PM

david_gaithersburg: Violence against anyone is violence, women do not need there own set of laws.


... and we're back to the same derp that was clearly debunked hours ago. You must have to actually work at being this obtuse. This is too much whargarbl for a Friday afternoon.

Never give up the fight, no matter how little you understand about it, potato-page posters!
 
2013-02-01 04:23:03 PM

Skyrmion: Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?

I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.


As a longtime Ohio resident, I'm waiting for Boehner to introduce a bill with that exact title.
 
2013-02-01 04:23:22 PM

nickdaisy: So you'd prefer to allow a supreme authority to rule on the issue? Doesn't the idea of a monopoly of power frighten you? Wouldn't it make sense to vest the federal government only with a few, specific, absolutely necessary national authorities, knowing that over time all three branches would inevitably seek to consolidate power?


You know the Articles of Confederation was a failure right?

nickdaisy: We need you Ron Paul-- save us before we all turn into king worshipping zombies.


Yeah, we need Ron Paul to wreck our economy by bringing back the Gold Standard!
 
2013-02-01 04:23:35 PM
Not surprising with those:

www.mediaite.com
 
2013-02-01 04:24:03 PM
I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of resentment towards women

and yet I'm sure the irony here is lost...
 
2013-02-01 04:24:22 PM

mahuika: serial_crusher: Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)

But that's kind of what we already do. Distributing something fairly doesn't always mean equally. A neighborhood with a lot of kids is going to have four elementary schools, whereas a neighborhood in which a lot of single young professionals live might have one.


Exactly.  Schools are allocated according to their need.  If some new trend sprung up among young professionals to start reproducing at a younger age without moving to the suburbs, we wouldn't need a specific initiative to build more schools in those neighborhoods.  The existing algorithm should just notice that the concentration of children in that area is increasing, and add schools accordingly.
Same with domestic violence shelters.  Build them in areas where victims congregate, not where a specific class of victims congregates.

Maybe I'm being naive to apply computer science concepts to politics, but special cases should be avoided.
 
2013-02-01 04:26:15 PM

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.


Well you're certainly free to be skeptical due to your past experiences. I tend to not be involved with communities that stand in opposition to my beliefs. I know there are some groups out there that advocate the rights of men that do admirable work. Near me is a firm that is an advocate for the rights of fathers in divorce proceedings. Maybe deep down inside they're actually a bunch of misogynist lady-haters, but overall they seem like they're working towards equality and the stuff I read about them is impressive. It would also seem that they'd sort of have to have many clients that resent women... since they're apparently involved with a divorce with a woman they resent and want to gain custody of their children in spite of her wishes.

I do hope, however, that you don't believe that I think many Republicans aren't opposed to this for the wrong reason. I'm sure plenty of them are against it just because it helps illegals or whatever. My original comment was that people should find out more about the bill before just groaning about Republicans liking violence.
 
2013-02-01 04:29:45 PM

ProfessorOhki: Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.

Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.


The thing is- in order to present them as totally equal arguments, you have to pretend that the bulk of human history hasn't happened. Women have been historically shortchanged in a lot of ways- we're still pretty drastically underrepresented if you compare government representation to the general population. Things have improved quite a bit, but feminism does tend to focus on overcoming historical inequalities and on changing the way women participate in our culture.
 
2013-02-01 04:30:00 PM

USP .45: someonelse: USP .45: so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?

"The Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill seeks to protect all victims of domestic and sexual violence, including tribal women, college students, and members of the LGBT community,"

Implying they aren't already protected?

No. But go ahead and pretend that your toddler-level understanding of the issue is correct. It's easier that way.

And Republicans oppose it just because they're Republicans, that isn't toddler level? The article offers nothing.


Romneycare: no one said a peep about it when Romney installed it in Massachusetts. But the moment Obama proposed it for the country, Republicans went insane demonizing it, declaring it socialism, calling it unconstitutional. Then Romney said he would tear down Romneycare... and put it right back up. But it would be okay, because a Republican proposed it.

Republicans also have a colorful history of the past four years with opposing things that they themselves proposed and endorsed because Obama or another prominent Democrat happened to like and endorse it, too. Let's also not forget "The number-one job is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president."- McConnell.
 
2013-02-01 04:30:16 PM

serial_crusher: mahuika: serial_crusher: Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)

But that's kind of what we already do. Distributing something fairly doesn't always mean equally. A neighborhood with a lot of kids is going to have four elementary schools, whereas a neighborhood in which a lot of single young professionals live might have one.

Exactly.  Schools are allocated according to their need.  If some new trend sprung up among young professionals to start reproducing at a younger age without moving to the suburbs, we wouldn't need a specific initiative to build more schools in those neighborhoods.  The existing algorithm should just notice that the concentration of children in that area is increasing, and add schools accordingly.
Same with domestic violence shelters.  Build them in areas where victims congregate, not where a specific class of victims congregates.

Maybe I'm being naive to apply computer science concepts to politics, but special cases should be avoided.


I don't know enough about sociology, but there might be a case for randomizing the location a bit. Otherwise you might create a feedback loop where the shelter draws in people from the surrounding area, so they build more shelters, which attracts more people from the surrounding area, goto 10. I'm not sure what they'd be, but I get the feeling that creating a massive concentration of victims in one spot could have some sort of side effects.
 
2013-02-01 04:31:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Because false premises are self evident.

What's the real premise?


His? All things republican is bad.

Again, that was quite evident. The bills? Just more charity disguised as legislation. No one wants more battered domestic partners, excluding the batterers I presume, but to label any objection evil as has been done is purely politics.
 
2013-02-01 04:32:10 PM

Treygreen13: I do hope, however, that you don't believe that I think many Republicans aren't opposed to this for the wrong reason. I'm sure plenty of them are against it just because it helps illegals or whatever. My original comment was that people should find out more about the bill before just groaning about Republicans liking violence.


I got that from the beginning and definitely didn't think you were arguing otherwise.

And yea, a law firm like the one you described doesn't bother me at all. That's legitimate. I was talking more about Men's Rights communities online- they tend to devolve pretty quickly into some ugly behavior. They show up and harass progressive women bloggers a lot.
 
2013-02-01 04:33:46 PM
*sigh*
Part of me wants to go nuclear on this thread with the ignore button but I'm starting to feel like it would be very very quiet in here.
 
2013-02-01 04:35:06 PM

ProfessorOhki: I don't know enough about sociology, but there might be a case for randomizing the location a bit. Otherwise you might create a feedback loop where the shelter draws in people from the surrounding area, so they build more shelters, which attracts more people from the surrounding area, goto 10. I'm not sure what they'd be, but I get the feeling that creating a massive concentration of victims in one spot could have some sort of side effects.


Well, you'd have to exclude already-reallocated victims from the algorithm.  Just measuring the number of new accusations xor convictions in a time interval should be sufficient.  That is, unless you start a trend of people being attacked within the shelter, but then you've got bigger problems to worry about.
 
2013-02-01 04:35:21 PM

GoldSpider: Just wait until we find out what else is in this bill that has nothing to do with violence against women.


Well, considering it was first enacted in 1994, you've had a couple of decades to educate yourself. And the new changes have been covered on Fark, or there's always Google.
 
2013-02-01 04:36:08 PM

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: I do hope, however, that you don't believe that I think many Republicans aren't opposed to this for the wrong reason. I'm sure plenty of them are against it just because it helps illegals or whatever. My original comment was that people should find out more about the bill before just groaning about Republicans liking violence.

I got that from the beginning and definitely didn't think you were arguing otherwise.

And yea, a law firm like the one you described doesn't bother me at all. That's legitimate. I was talking more about Men's Rights communities online- they tend to devolve pretty quickly into some ugly behavior. They show up and harass progressive women bloggers a lot.


I imagine so. I think it would be a nightmare trying to run any sort of group that diametrically opposes another group online without getting the militant angry morons in your userbase.
 
2013-02-01 04:36:08 PM

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Are you suggesting a man should abandon his children to a violent crazy woman?

I am suggesting, as I did in my OP, that there is more than "zero" support for male victims of abuse.


Those "men's shelters" you were so quick to post about typically are not equipped to deal with children.  That was one of the reasons the judge I mentioned ruled the the current system in California is disciminatory.
 
2013-02-01 04:37:01 PM

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.

Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.

The thing is- in order to present them as totally equal arguments, you have to pretend that the bulk of human history hasn't happened. Women have been historically shortchanged in a lot of ways- we're still pretty drastically underrepresented if you compare government representation to the general population. Things have improved quite a bit, but feminism does tend to focus on overcoming historical inequalities and on changing the way women participate in our culture.


I never really thought of it this way before, but you can almost consider feminism and men's rights the exact same response but just changing the length of the historical window. One responds to a long state of imbalance and one responds to a very recent trend of change in balance.

Hah, serial_crusher should like this:
current equality is the proportional term
feminism is the integral term
men's rights is the derivative term
 
2013-02-01 04:38:35 PM

Lost Thought 00: ITT - people who have not read the bill and don't realize that it covers everyone, including straight white men


But, it takes effort to actually understand something you have an opinion on! Who has time for that? I let Fox News infrom me.
 
2013-02-01 04:39:17 PM
Is it for or against violence against women?
 
2013-02-01 04:39:41 PM

jst3p: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic

OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.

These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.


The studies show that my first statement is true.

Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this.  Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.
 
2013-02-01 04:40:19 PM
Well, this escalated quickly.
 
2013-02-01 04:41:23 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, this escalated quickly.


Even funnier with your handle.
 
2013-02-01 04:42:39 PM

ProfessorOhki: I never really thought of it this way before, but you can almost consider feminism and men's rights the exact same response but just changing the length of the historical window. One responds to a long state of imbalance and one responds to a very recent trend of change in balance.


Exactly- but that's what I mean about protesting loss of privilege versus actual structural inequality. Men's Rights groups are reacting to what they feel like is an assault on their rights. That's a misconception though.
 
2013-02-01 04:42:57 PM

OgreMagi: jst3p: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic

OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.

These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.

The studies show that my first statement is true.


Show me one credible study that shows that men are victims "just as often".
 
2013-02-01 04:43:45 PM

OgreMagi: jst3p: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic

OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.

These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.

The studies show that my first statement is true.

Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this.  Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.


And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.
 
2013-02-01 04:45:09 PM

Frank N Stein: CapeFearCadaver: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States. The passage of VAWA in 1994, and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.

I don't have a problem with it. Although, in the sake of fairness, I believe that they shouldn't exclude half of the population in the legislation name. Men have and do suffer from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But the law itself seems pretty good.


It was named a long time ago, and now they can't alter it. Tradition or something.
 
2013-02-01 04:46:10 PM

nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.


That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.
 
2013-02-01 04:46:35 PM

PsiChick: Frank N Stein: CapeFearCadaver: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States. The passage of VAWA in 1994, and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.

I don't have a problem with it. Although, in the sake of fairness, I believe that they shouldn't exclude half of the population in the legislation name. Men have and do suffer from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But the law itself seems pretty good.

It was named a long time ago, and now they can't alter it. Tradition or something.


Meh, it's not even a big deal. It would be good, however, as to advertise that other people are protected under that law.
 
2013-02-01 04:49:25 PM

jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.


A Ron Paul blog is equally as valid right?
 
2013-02-01 04:52:00 PM

OgreMagi: Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this. Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.

As long as it is for the general welfare, the federal government can constitutionally spend money on whatever it wants. This bill merely funds programs. 

The bits that actually did legal heavy lifting were struck down almost 20 years ago - so relax.
 
2013-02-01 04:53:03 PM

nekom: FlashHarry:
"drill, baby, drill?"

Well, not to that extent. But realizing that if we intend to keep our current level of energy use, we are going to have to keep burning fossil fuels for a little while. Not that the Democrats don't acknowledge this to some extent, just trying to find SOMETHING to say they're right about. It's not easy.


But what they don't realize is, oil is a fungible commodity and we don't own the oil companies (they're not nationalized), so we'll pay the same whether that oil comes from North Dakota or Saudi Arabia,

We know we have to get off oil, so why do we need to keep drilling in our back yard? It doesn't gain us anything.
 
2013-02-01 04:53:32 PM
You do realize that the "Violence Against Women Act" has nothing to do with violence against women.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:01 PM
In their defense, the name Violence Against Women Act is pretty vague - I mean, is it for violence or against it.
Given some of their backgrounds, I can see where it could cause confusion.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:11 PM
I love the expansion of protections for homosexuals and wish they hadn't done away with the protections for illegal immigrants.  Yes, these are issues that need special attention above the normal protections afforded by existing laws.  Yes, domestic violence in gay relationships is the same as in any hetero relationships, but there are fewer options for sheltering the victim and prosecuting the abuser.  If gay relationships are not recognized as being official domestic relationships (common law marriage and the like) then the abuse can often not be classified as domestic violence, can not be prosecuted as such, and the victim is not entitled to the same treatments like therapy, housing options, and temporary financial assistance.  There are few enough shelters as it is that allow men and if a gay man is worried about being beaten up by hetero men at the shelter, there are no alternative options because the women aren't going to take him either.

Never mind the sadism behind the mentality with not protecting illegal immigrants.  These people are already worried about getting arrested and separated.  If an abused illegal immigrant even bothers to seek help (which they don't because of the whole arrested and separated thing), shelters literally cannot help them - no money, no food, no counseling - if they cannot prove they are legal.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:20 PM
Because those old, cranky white. incredibly wealthy and greedy men want to pander to the ignorant hicks that beat their wives.

GOP = Greedy Old Pricks.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:30 PM

jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.


So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.
 
2013-02-01 04:57:31 PM
JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.


But why does it appear on one side of the aisle so often?


Confirmation bias?

Anyway,

For those who are wanting to read the actual text of the bill, it's here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text You'll have to compare that with the original text.

Criticism of the bill focuses heavily on the fact that it has broad definitions and provides no additional penalties for false accusers (false or unnecessary reports make up nearly 70% of domestic abuse cases). Basically, the bill as it stands is rife with text that can allow vindictive individuals to claim abuse without evidence of abuse and potentially ruin the life of the person they accuse. This is a bad thing, regardless of what side you are on. Is something that makes prosecution of domestic abuse easier worth sending innocent people to prison? SAVE Services, a non-profit abuse awareness group, has a number of reforms they recommend to improve the bill. http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/  . Most of what I see from people defending this bill is "WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AAAAAAAGH!" Which is precisely why it was called the Violence Against Women Act. Because it can be an effective political bludgeon for use against opponents (Republicans). "This law helps abuse victims! There is no way this can have negative consequences! Republicans are douchebags for opposing it!" is probably the most ignorant attitude you could have. We should be building better legislation by checking the laws we have for weaknesses and resolving them. Instead we're trying to pass laws to score points and win the PR battle.

/This logic may be more than Fark can handle.
 
2013-02-01 04:58:14 PM

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: I never really thought of it this way before, but you can almost consider feminism and men's rights the exact same response but just changing the length of the historical window. One responds to a long state of imbalance and one responds to a very recent trend of change in balance.

Exactly- but that's what I mean about protesting loss of privilege versus actual structural inequality. Men's Rights groups are reacting to what they feel like is an assault on their rights. That's a misconception though.


Yeah, there's some of that for sure. The issue that bugs me though (in general, not talking about VAWA) is that the severity of a crime shouldn't be based on the victim against whom it was committed except in cases like children and the disabled. There's no historical context that lets you reasonably go, "well, your group was able to vote for longer, so we're going to give the person who beat you 5 years instead of 10." There are contexts where historical privilege can be relevant, but it's not criminal law and it really shouldn't be victim support either.
 
2013-02-01 04:58:34 PM

nickdaisy: This is not a responsibility of the federal government.


Note there are large differences between arguing that something is outside the power of Congress under the Constitution and that it is not government's responsibility.  Under the tax and spending clause (and the 16th amendment), Congress could levy an income tax specifically to provide every american with an ice cream cone on their birthday.  This would likely pass any constitutional muster.  That is not to say that it is a proper responsibility of government.

In other words, stop conflating constitutional and a good idea.  Many things are great ideas but unconstitutional, just as many things you may thing are terrible idea are 100% constitutional.

/Note: This applies to both political sides.
 
2013-02-01 04:58:42 PM

nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.


It's not the responsibility of the federal government to protect and aid its citizens?
 
2013-02-01 04:59:09 PM

nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?


Fair criticism, but since it has been around for a long time and it doesn't look like anyone is going to challenge it "It's unconstitutional!" is kind of a moot point to make.
 
2013-02-01 04:59:25 PM

Teiritzamna: OgreMagi: Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this. Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.

As long as it is for the general welfare, the federal government can constitutionally spend money on whatever it wants. This bill merely funds programs. 

The bits that actually did legal heavy lifting were struck down almost 20 years ago - so relax.


So could then, for example, the federal government spend money on requiring all people to wear socks? Love "Twilight?" Learn to rhumba?

Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!
 
2013-02-01 05:01:34 PM
I get side tracked so easily. :/
 
2013-02-01 05:02:22 PM

nickdaisy: So could then, for example, the federal government spend money on requiring all people to wear socks? Love "Twilight?" Learn to rhumba?

Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!


No, but they could offer everyone in america $10 a week to wear socks, or say that they love twilight or learn to rumba.

They shouldn't, but they could. The spending power is pretty vast and it is right there in the constitution.
 
2013-02-01 05:03:12 PM

ProfessorOhki: There are contexts where historical privilege can be relevant, but it's not criminal law and it really shouldn't be victim support either.


I would agree with you that historical privilege isn't particularly relevant in criminal law most of the time- but not all of the time. Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that hate crimes legislation, for example, was created so that federal authority could be used in areas where local law enforcement chooses not to act based on prejudice. I think the need for that is probably dwindling, but it's certainly not totally gone. Imagine being Mexican and the victim of a crime in Sheriff Joe's district for example.

As far as victim support goes- I think it should be allocated based on need, and as it stands, women are still much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic abuse than men are, and therefore it makes sense to tailor the response to that reality. Should those numbers begin to shift, I think revisiting how aid is allocated would make sense.
 
Displayed 50 of 571 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report