Is the Violence Against Women's Act fair or constitutional?
Under VAWA, should a woman simply request a restraining order, she may be granted said order with only a civil burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) and have what are almost criminal rights restrictions placed upon a man without having to prove anything. Of these a man's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 14th amendment are up for legal violation upon the very request. In addition, should the filer wish, a complaint can be lodged privately with the police at any time merely accusing the restrained of calling or speaking to, even if it never happened, for which he will be arrested and tried as a criminal.
So I ask, is this fair, constitutional or helpful? Its been around for over a decade and domestic violence still occurs, now as much as ever.
All firearms are confiscated, rights on speech and free contact with family are restricted, the equal protection (as in protection of constitutional rights and due process and consideration under law) are set aside in the name of expediency.
Its also so cute how any questioning of the legal fairness or constitutionality of such a sensitive and touchy subject, protected and championed by militant PC feminists always automatically leads to assumptions of abuse on the part of the accused when NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS EVER REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH SAID ORDER.