Violence Against Women Act Research Paper
The Violence Against Women Act creates a right to be "free from crimes of
violence" that are gender motivated. It also gives a private civil right of
action to the victims of these crimes. The Senate report attached to the act
states that "Gender based crimes and fear of gender based crimes...reduces
employment opportunities and consumer spending affecting interstate
commerce."
Sara Benenson has been abused by her husband, Andrew Benenson, since 1978.
Because of this abuse, she sued her husband under various tort claims and
violations under the Violence Against Women Act. Now Mr. Benenson is
protesting the constitutionality of this act claiming that Congress has no
right to pass a law that legislates for the common welfare.
However, …show more content…
In the United States v. Lopez decision, The Supreme Court struck down the Gun
Free School Zones Act. It's reasoning was that Congress had overstepped it's
power to legislate interstate commerce. The Court decided that this act was
not sufficiently grounded in interstate commerce for Congress to be allowed
to pass it.
The circumstances in this case are entirely different than in the case of
Sara Benenson. For one thing, the Gun Free School Zones Act was not nearly as
well based in the commerce clause as is our case. The Gun act said that
violence in schools kept student from learning and therefore limited their
future earning power. It also said that violence affected national insurance
companies. These connections are tenuous at best and generally too long term
to be considered. However, in the case of Mrs. Benenson, her inability to
work and spend directly and immediately affected interstate commerce.
Therefore, the Lopez decision should not have any part in the decision of
this case.
The Supreme Court, in McCulloch v. Maryland, gave Congress the right to …show more content…
In order for Congress to
legislate interstate commerce fairly, it must allow people to be able to work
and spend as they should be able to. If a woman is afraid of being abused if
she gets a job or spends money, it affects interstate commerce. Thus The
Violence Against Women Act is Constitutionally based and necessary for
interstate commerce.
Violence against women is a terrible crime. It destroys women's self esteem,
tears apart families, and destroys lives. Many times, it will lead to murder
or other terrible crimes. What the Violence Against Women Act is trying to do
is give women a weapon to protect themselves from violent spouses. Without
this act, many women would be left incapable of getting any form of financial
redress for the years of suffering and abuse they went through.
It is wrong to deny women a tool to rebuild they're lives after an abusive
relationship. The years of abuse they went through makes it hard if not
impossible for them to get a job or work in an office. These women are afraid
for the rest of their lives that if they make a mistake or displease the
violence" that are gender motivated. It also gives a private civil right of
action to the victims of these crimes. The Senate report attached to the act
states that "Gender based crimes and fear of gender based crimes...reduces
employment opportunities and consumer spending affecting interstate
commerce."
Sara Benenson has been abused by her husband, Andrew Benenson, since 1978.
Because of this abuse, she sued her husband under various tort claims and
violations under the Violence Against Women Act. Now Mr. Benenson is
protesting the constitutionality of this act claiming that Congress has no
right to pass a law that legislates for the common welfare.
However, …show more content…
In the United States v. Lopez decision, The Supreme Court struck down the Gun
Free School Zones Act. It's reasoning was that Congress had overstepped it's
power to legislate interstate commerce. The Court decided that this act was
not sufficiently grounded in interstate commerce for Congress to be allowed
to pass it.
The circumstances in this case are entirely different than in the case of
Sara Benenson. For one thing, the Gun Free School Zones Act was not nearly as
well based in the commerce clause as is our case. The Gun act said that
violence in schools kept student from learning and therefore limited their
future earning power. It also said that violence affected national insurance
companies. These connections are tenuous at best and generally too long term
to be considered. However, in the case of Mrs. Benenson, her inability to
work and spend directly and immediately affected interstate commerce.
Therefore, the Lopez decision should not have any part in the decision of
this case.
The Supreme Court, in McCulloch v. Maryland, gave Congress the right to …show more content…
In order for Congress to
legislate interstate commerce fairly, it must allow people to be able to work
and spend as they should be able to. If a woman is afraid of being abused if
she gets a job or spends money, it affects interstate commerce. Thus The
Violence Against Women Act is Constitutionally based and necessary for
interstate commerce.
Violence against women is a terrible crime. It destroys women's self esteem,
tears apart families, and destroys lives. Many times, it will lead to murder
or other terrible crimes. What the Violence Against Women Act is trying to do
is give women a weapon to protect themselves from violent spouses. Without
this act, many women would be left incapable of getting any form of financial
redress for the years of suffering and abuse they went through.
It is wrong to deny women a tool to rebuild they're lives after an abusive
relationship. The years of abuse they went through makes it hard if not
impossible for them to get a job or work in an office. These women are afraid
for the rest of their lives that if they make a mistake or displease the