Domestic Violence Law Fuels Big Government by Wendy McElroy

Courtesy of Lew Rockwell.com.

At issue is the Violence Against Women Act, which expires this year. The President, for whatever reason, apparently intends to renew the appropriation. Wendy McElroy says that Congress ought to refuse.

To the arguments she presented--that the VAWA unjustly protects women as a special class and also expands the scope of government in ways beyond any legitimate compelling interest--I give this criticism of VAWA: that it violates the fundamental principles of federalism. Domestic violence is like common garden-variety street crime, and I see no compelling interest for making it a federal matter. Not that VAWA actually makes domestic violence a federal offense--it doesn't. But it does give alleged victims of domestic violence (female only) and rape (again, female only) a special entitlement--and the last thing any government at any level needs to day is to "entitle" its citizens to yet more taxpayer's money benefits! Federal entitlements--which are actually transfers of wealth--are a Constitutional abomination, for two reasons:

1. They sanction the theft of monies from one citizen to benefit another, and as such ought to be unconstitutional in any State.
2. They commit federal money to purposes that are not among the legitimate federal purposes set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution. These programs do not strengthen the union of States, do not serve justice, do not affect domestic tranquillity (and we're talking about tranquillity of the community, not of the household here), do not enhance the common defense, do not promote the general welfare, and if anything are a threat to liberty.

Under the circumstances, I find the VAWA unconstitutional on its face, and for reasons going beyond the Supreme Court's original strike-down of one of its provisions. Thus I join Ms. McElroy in urging a "no" vote.