Violence Against Women Act
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
has no right to pass a law that legislates for the common welfare. However, Congress has a clear Constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. This act is based solely on interstate commerce and is thereforeConstitutional. Because of abuse, Sara Benenson was afraid to get a job because it would anger her husband. She was afraid to go back to school and she was afraid to go shopping or spend any money on her own. All three of these things clearly interfere and affect interstate commerce. Women like Mrs. Benenson are the reason the act was passed. There has been a long history of judgements in favor of Congress's power to legislate using the commerce clause as a justification. For the past fifty years, Congress's right to interpret the commerce clause has been unchallenged by the Court with few exceptions. There is no rational reason for this court to go against the powerful precedents set by the Supreme court to allow Congress to use the Commerce clause. In the case of Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court upheld an act of Congress which was based on the commerce clause, that prohibited segregation. McClung, the owner of a barbeque that would not allow blacks to eat inside the restaurant, claimed that his business was completely intrastate. He stated that his business had little or no out of state business and was therefore not subject to the act passed by Congress because it could not legislate intrastate commerce. The Court however, decided that because the restaurant received some of it's food from out of state that it was involved in interstate commerce. The same logic should be applied in this case. Even though Sara Benenson's inability to work might not seem to affect interstate commerce, it will in some way as with McClung, thus making the act constitutional. The Supreme Court had decided that any connection with interstate commerce,as long as it has a rational basis, makes it possible for Congress to legislate it. 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 make laws that are out of their strict Constitutional powers so as to be able to fulfill one of their Constitutional duties. In this case, the Court allowed to create a bank. There is no Constitutional right to do this and Maryland challenged the creation of this bank. The high court ruled that in order for Congress to be able to accomplish it's duties. The same logic should be applied here. The Violence Against Women Act is an example of Congress overstepping it's direct Constitutional rights so it can better regulate and facilitate interstate commerce. 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 men around them, they will be beaten. This act allows women to get some means of getting money to live on while they rebuild their lives. It allows them to seek professional help if necessary. Without this act, women would be forced on welfare or worse. When this happens, it benefits no one. The Violence Against Women Act has a strong Constitutional basis in the commerce clause, despite what Andrew Benenson says. The Supreme Court has allowed many acts such as this to stand for the past fifty years. All the precedents of cases with similar circumstances are to allow the act to stand. Also, we cannot forget the human aspect of this case. This act is a tool for women to rebuild their shattered lives after an abusive relationship. To declare his act unconstitutional would be both legally and morally wrong.