GOP Tries To Gut Protections For Native Women In Violence Against Women Act

[Lakhota]

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans on Wednesday quietly tried to repeal a major provision in the Violence Against Women Act that helps tribes respond to horrific levels of violence directed at Native American women by non-Native men on tribal lands.

During a House Judiciary Committee markup on the 2019 bill to reauthorize the law, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to repeal provisions in the 2013 law that give tribes jurisdiction over non-Native people who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim on tribal land.

He claimed that non-Native domestic abusers’ constitutional rights might not be upheld if they harm a Native woman on tribal land and have to go before a tribal court. His amendment would have also stripped out new language in the 2019 bill to expand tribes’ jurisdiction over non-Native abusers who commit crimes of sex trafficking, stalking and violence against law enforcement officers on tribal land.

“Tribal courts do not necessarily adhere to the same constitutional provisions that protect the rights of all defendants in federal and state courts,” said Sensenbrenner. “This sets us down the road to a dangerous path.”

This is the same argument that Republicans made in 2013 before they voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. It completely glosses over the reality that tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws in place for responding to crimes committed on their land, just like any other state or country has laws for this.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the committee, said the tribal provision in the Violence Against Women Act respects tribes’ “inherent sovereign authority” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native abusers.

“By exercising this jurisdiction, tribal communities have increased the safety and justice for some victims,” said Nadler. “There are no constitutional concerns with this provision … It’s a salutary provision of the law. It should not be abolished.”

The committee ultimately rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. Republicans who voted for it were Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Johnson (La.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Ben Cline (Va.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Sensenbrenner.

More: GOP Tries To Gut Protections For Native Women In Violence Against Women Act

Thankfully, the committee rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. What do you think?

 

[Pete7469]

You're subject of your own laws.

Protect your own people.

 

[Kat]

OP's should be 3 or 4 paragraphs, link and comment.

• 
  
  
  • Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


Lakhota

 

[JGalt]

Native American men should rightly be allowed to beat their wemmins, should they become unruly or insubordinate. After all, isn't that what they've done for hundreds of years already, and isn't that one of the special protections our government has allowed them, in order to live by their own tribal customs?

 

[bripat9643]

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans on Wednesday quietly tried to repeal a major provision in the Violence Against Women Act that helps tribes respond to horrific levels of violence directed at Native American women by non-Native men on tribal lands.

During a House Judiciary Committee markup on the 2019 bill to reauthorize the law, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to repeal provisions in the 2013 law that give tribes jurisdiction over non-Native people who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim on tribal land.

He claimed that non-Native domestic abusers’ constitutional rights might not be upheld if they harm a Native woman on tribal land and have to go before a tribal court. His amendment would have also stripped out new language in the 2019 bill to expand tribes’ jurisdiction over non-Native abusers who commit crimes of sex trafficking, stalking and violence against law enforcement officers on tribal land.

“Tribal courts do not necessarily adhere to the same constitutional provisions that protect the rights of all defendants in federal and state courts,” said Sensenbrenner. “This sets us down the road to a dangerous path.”

This is the same argument that Republicans made in 2013 before they voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. It completely glosses over the reality that tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws in place for responding to crimes committed on their land, just like any other state or country has laws for this.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the committee, said the tribal provision in the Violence Against Women Act respects tribes’ “inherent sovereign authority” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native abusers.

“By exercising this jurisdiction, tribal communities have increased the safety and justice for some victims,” said Nadler. “There are no constitutional concerns with this provision … It’s a salutary provision of the law. It should not be abolished.”

The committee ultimately rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. Republicans who voted for it were Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Johnson (La.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Ben Cline (Va.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Sensenbrenner.

More: GOP Tries To Gut Protections For Native Women In Violence Against Women Act

Thankfully, the committee rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. What do you think?

If tribes are sovereign nations, then revoke the American citizenship of their members. Revoke their welfare. Revoke their social security. Revoke everything they are entitled to as American citizens. Otherwise, the tribes can shut the fuck up and follow the same laws that the rest of us follow.

 

[Darkwind]

If non-Tribal members are entering their lands and abusing their women, they should close their borders. They are a sovereign nation and we have no business interfering with them.

Hell, they should build a wall to protect themselves.

 

[JGalt]

If non-Tribal members are entering their lands and abusing their women, they should close their borders. They are a sovereign nation and we have no business interfering with them.

Hell, they should build a wall to protect themselves.

Long as they don't try to make us white-eyes pay for it, then ok.

 

[Darkwind]

If non-Tribal members are entering their lands and abusing their women, they should close their borders. They are a sovereign nation and we have no business interfering with them.

Hell, they should build a wall to protect themselves.

Long as they don't try to make us white-eyes pay for it, then ok.

Hey, they can tax or tariff any and all goods entering their land. If they wish to use the money to build a wall, who am I to say otherwise?

 

[Andylusion]

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans on Wednesday quietly tried to repeal a major provision in the Violence Against Women Act that helps tribes respond to horrific levels of violence directed at Native American women by non-Native men on tribal lands.

During a House Judiciary Committee markup on the 2019 bill to reauthorize the law, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to repeal provisions in the 2013 law that give tribes jurisdiction over non-Native people who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim on tribal land.

He claimed that non-Native domestic abusers’ constitutional rights might not be upheld if they harm a Native woman on tribal land and have to go before a tribal court. His amendment would have also stripped out new language in the 2019 bill to expand tribes’ jurisdiction over non-Native abusers who commit crimes of sex trafficking, stalking and violence against law enforcement officers on tribal land.

“Tribal courts do not necessarily adhere to the same constitutional provisions that protect the rights of all defendants in federal and state courts,” said Sensenbrenner. “This sets us down the road to a dangerous path.”

This is the same argument that Republicans made in 2013 before they voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. It completely glosses over the reality that tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws in place for responding to crimes committed on their land, just like any other state or country has laws for this.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the committee, said the tribal provision in the Violence Against Women Act respects tribes’ “inherent sovereign authority” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native abusers.

“By exercising this jurisdiction, tribal communities have increased the safety and justice for some victims,” said Nadler. “There are no constitutional concerns with this provision … It’s a salutary provision of the law. It should not be abolished.”

The committee ultimately rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. Republicans who voted for it were Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Johnson (La.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Ben Cline (Va.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Sensenbrenner.

More: GOP Tries To Gut Protections For Native Women In Violence Against Women Act

Thankfully, the committee rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. What do you think?

Really? So your idea of allowing native courts, to over rule the laws of this land?

So for example, if the Native tribes decide wife beating is fine, then you are fully supporting them being allowed to do?

We need one set of laws in this land, that everyone is subject to. I support what the Republicans are doing, and they are right to do it. And honestly you people are trash for opposing it. How much you must hate justice and law enforcement.

 

[JGalt]

If non-Tribal members are entering their lands and abusing their women, they should close their borders. They are a sovereign nation and we have no business interfering with them.

Hell, they should build a wall to protect themselves.

Long as they don't try to make us white-eyes pay for it, then ok.

Hey, they can tax or tariff any and all goods entering their land. If they wish to use the money to build a wall, who am I to say otherwise?

I heard they already started building a section of the wall in Montana...

 

[whitehall]

Maybe it's time for Native Americans to join the United States and acknowledge the U.S. Constitution. Maybe there would be less poverty and alcoholism on Tribal lands if the members of the Tribal Court were sober and had more than a grammar school education.

 

[BlackFlag]

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans on Wednesday quietly tried to repeal a major provision in the Violence Against Women Act that helps tribes respond to horrific levels of violence directed at Native American women by non-Native men on tribal lands.

During a House Judiciary Committee markup on the 2019 bill to reauthorize the law, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to repeal provisions in the 2013 law that give tribes jurisdiction over non-Native people who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim on tribal land.

He claimed that non-Native domestic abusers’ constitutional rights might not be upheld if they harm a Native woman on tribal land and have to go before a tribal court. His amendment would have also stripped out new language in the 2019 bill to expand tribes’ jurisdiction over non-Native abusers who commit crimes of sex trafficking, stalking and violence against law enforcement officers on tribal land.

“Tribal courts do not necessarily adhere to the same constitutional provisions that protect the rights of all defendants in federal and state courts,” said Sensenbrenner. “This sets us down the road to a dangerous path.”

This is the same argument that Republicans made in 2013 before they voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. It completely glosses over the reality that tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws in place for responding to crimes committed on their land, just like any other state or country has laws for this.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the committee, said the tribal provision in the Violence Against Women Act respects tribes’ “inherent sovereign authority” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native abusers.

“By exercising this jurisdiction, tribal communities have increased the safety and justice for some victims,” said Nadler. “There are no constitutional concerns with this provision … It’s a salutary provision of the law. It should not be abolished.”

The committee ultimately rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. Republicans who voted for it were Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Johnson (La.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Ben Cline (Va.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Sensenbrenner.

More: GOP Tries To Gut Protections For Native Women In Violence Against Women Act

Thankfully, the committee rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. What do you think?

The American Taliban thinks if women don't like being assaulted, they should stop asking for it.

 

[Blackrook]

The OP is misleading, as per usual for this person who adheres to Democratic talking points, without thinking for himself.

 

[John Shaw]

VAWA is discriminatory trash and should be thrown in the dumpster where it belongs.

 

[Dragonlady]

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans on Wednesday quietly tried to repeal a major provision in the Violence Against Women Act that helps tribes respond to horrific levels of violence directed at Native American women by non-Native men on tribal lands.

During a House Judiciary Committee markup on the 2019 bill to reauthorize the law, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to repeal provisions in the 2013 law that give tribes jurisdiction over non-Native people who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim on tribal land.

He claimed that non-Native domestic abusers’ constitutional rights might not be upheld if they harm a Native woman on tribal land and have to go before a tribal court. His amendment would have also stripped out new language in the 2019 bill to expand tribes’ jurisdiction over non-Native abusers who commit crimes of sex trafficking, stalking and violence against law enforcement officers on tribal land.

“Tribal courts do not necessarily adhere to the same constitutional provisions that protect the rights of all defendants in federal and state courts,” said Sensenbrenner. “This sets us down the road to a dangerous path.”

This is the same argument that Republicans made in 2013 before they voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. It completely glosses over the reality that tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws in place for responding to crimes committed on their land, just like any other state or country has laws for this.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the committee, said the tribal provision in the Violence Against Women Act respects tribes’ “inherent sovereign authority” to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Native abusers.

“By exercising this jurisdiction, tribal communities have increased the safety and justice for some victims,” said Nadler. “There are no constitutional concerns with this provision … It’s a salutary provision of the law. It should not be abolished.”

The committee ultimately rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. Republicans who voted for it were Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Johnson (La.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Ben Cline (Va.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Sensenbrenner.

More: GOP Tries To Gut Protections For Native Women In Violence Against Women Act

Thankfully, the committee rejected Sensenbrenner’s amendment along party lines, in a 9-16 vote. What do you think?

Really? So your idea of allowing native courts, to over rule the laws of this land?

So for example, if the Native tribes decide wife beating is fine, then you are fully supporting them being allowed to do?

We need one set of laws in this land, that everyone is subject to. I support what the Republicans are doing, and they are right to do it. And honestly you people are trash for opposing it. How much you must hate justice and law enforcement.

You let states make their own laws so that what is legal in one state is illegal in others. How are tribal rights any different than states’ rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see. So should we allow Sharia Law to take place in states like Minnesota where they have a significant Muslim population? Witch burning was always a hoot when there was nothing to watch on television. Is there an embassy for Saudi Arabia in the US? I don't know. But if so, should we allow them to execute homosexuals because an embassy is considered their land?

As Republicans try to unify the country, Democrats fight to keep us apart. This kind of reminds me of Hate Crime laws, as if murder in any other way is out of love.