eddd9d2a80
- Successfully imported 1731 WordPress posts to Hugo markdown format - Migrated 204+ images from archive to static directory - Copied standalone directories (curtain, farm, gobbler, house, images, party, revcemetery, railsday, birthday) - Fixed all internal links to use /legacy prefix for archived content - Remapped archive links to point to correct Hugo posts - Fixed Louisville Georgia Cemetery post rendering issue 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
8 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
8 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
author: Eric Wagoner
|
|
date: '2000-05-15T01:10:30'
|
|
draft: false
|
|
title: I just heard the the
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
I just heard the the Supreme Court has struck down the _Violence Against Women Act_ , or at least the portion of the act that lets women victims of violence sue their attackers in federal court. I imagine that there's going to be an uproar over this, and most of the uproar will miss the point of the decision, I predict. The US Constitution clearly defines what the federal government has the power to legistate, and really, it isn't much. Much less, in fact, than what Congress actually passes laws over. One thing the government can regulate is interstate commerce, and the federal attorneys argued that beaten, demoralized women **must** have a negative effect on commerce. If people are happy, there's a positive impact on "employment, production, transit or consumption", no? Not the sturdiest of connections, and so the law's overturned. Even with the best of intentions, the federal government can't overstep its bounds. The next step, of course, is to get the states to pass their own tough laws. Or overturn the tenth amendment. Whichever you prefer. Here's [CNN's story](http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/15/scotus.rape.ap/index.html), and [here's the full text](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-5) of the opinion. |