out of touch republicans

PJ_Soul wrote:

Speaking of "out of touch" Republicans, there is also this guy....

http://www.upworthy.com/a-politician-at ... him?c=upw1

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:

"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.

S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.

The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.

First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.

Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.

Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.

Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.

The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.

The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."

Sounds reasonable to me.