Heidi Heitkamp, John Hoeven Help Pass Unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act

Heidi Heitkamp

During the North Dakota Senate campaign last year, liberal Democrat Heidi Heitkamp was quick to lambaste her opponent Rick Berg for a “war on women” because House Republicans were resisting the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. To hear Heitkamp tell it at the time, Berg was all for violence against women, but there was good reason to avoid the reauthorization.

Democrats embedded in the new law provisions expanding the authority of tribal courts to non-tribal members accused of crimes on reservation lands, which runs afoul of the right to trial by an impartial jury. In Duren vs Missouri, the Supreme Court held that a trial by a jury made up exclusively of men violated both the 6th amendment requirement for an impartial jury and the 14th amendment requirement for equal protection under the law.

In tribal courts, juries are made up exclusively of tribal members. How could any non-tribal member be said to have received an impartial trial with such a jury?

That apparently doesn’t matter to Senator Heitkamp, despite having touted her legal credentials during her campaign, or Senator Hoeven for that matter both of whom voted for the bill:

The U.S. Senate voted 68-31 today to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which aims to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., both voted for the bill, which puts new provisions concerning the LGBT and American Indian communities into the act.

Hoeven was among Republican senators who tried unsuccessfully to strip the LGBT provision from the bill but voted for it on final passage. Heitkamp was among the bill’s cosponsors.

“This legislation is critically important to North Dakota families, particularly for Native American women,” Heitkamp said in a statement issued after the vote.

The goal of protecting women from violence is, of course, very important. But then, due process rights up to and including trial by a fair and impartial jury are pretty important too.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Roy_Bean

    I’m afraid we still have 2 democrat senators.

    • Ray Seltz

      Hoeven has always been a Moderate, RINO. Don’t forget how well that he got along with Dorgan and Conrad and that 77% or so voted for him for Governor.

      • VocalYokel

        Where I’m from we spell ‘Moderate Republican’ … D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T with a particular emphasis on the last three letters.

    • SusanBeehler

      Read the bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112ldQ8v8::
      it is a reauthorization of the law Congress passed in 1994. It is a law which helped change the way the courts, the police and the public looked at domestic violence, rape and other abuse. Educate yourself or you will be part of a system which allowed abuse to grow in “secret” rather than address it. In the 70’s and the 80’s women were “lucky” if they called police to receive any kind of help if they were beaten, raped or abused by a family member. Heidi has always been a champion to fight for victims of these types of crimes.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        It’s not an exact re-authorization. There are changes to the law, including the unconstitutional assault on due process for non-tribal members.

        But, of course, you’re confident in your ignorance.

        • Guest Observer

          Good thing breathing is automatic for Suzy!

        • SusanBeehler

          Let’s look at it another way if you go to a foreign country are you tried by the American laws or you tried under the laws of that nation? Does our constitution apply in another country? Indian Country

          You or I are not experts on Constitutional law, so how is this determined? When a law is enacted a case can be brought before the court to determine if it is in fact constitutional or non-constitutional, in this case with the passage of VAWA a non-tribal member comes on the rez and rapes or abuses than he could be arrested and tried, at time if his attorney wants to challenge the constitutionality of the law they could bring the case forward. In the mean time we need the shelters and tools VAWA brings forward, non-tribal members may need to think twice about committing a crime in “Indian Country”.

          I am confident in our separation of powers, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

          • slackwarerobert

            OK, well clinton says you are not subject to the other countries laws, they should have beat that vandal as the law requires. But here is the difference, those other countries WON their wars so can decide for themselves, indians LOST. US constitution ends at the borders, see gitmo. Treaties are only good when the government honors them, and clinton once again got his ruling the government can shaft the indians and break the law. As I said, untill we restore the republic you are on your own.

      • slackwarerobert

        No, it is a new law with very bad language in it, ripe with wording to allow abuses by the government. If you recall they are raping women in the white house every time a democrat resides there, why would they want to prosecute themselves? Just shoot them between the nuts and even if they have viagra, they won’t be getting it up.

        • SusanBeehler

          Good thing insurance pays for viagra, God forbid it would pay for a women’s birth control. Your idea of birth control, shooting them? I wonder how Right to Life feels about that? Did you even read the law both the new and improved versions are available? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112ldQ8v8::

          • slackwarerobert

            That is why I brought it up, they give rapists viagra, and you want the same government to protect you. That is the definition of insanity in a nut shell. My idea of birth control is keeping my pants on and my wick dry, works every time. ( i can’t say it doesn’t suck sometimes, but the alternative is much worse.) At least you are admitting it isn’t a renewal of the law now, that is a start.

  • WOOF

    Always looking for an excuse to beat up on women.
    Another nail in the Republican cross.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Right. Because standing up for due process is “beating up on women.”

      • WOOF

        Aren’t tribal lands sovereign? Don’t the Tribal Nations prosecute the crimes on their territories under their laws ? In other words you ain’t in Kansas Toto

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          No, they’re not sovereign. The constitution still applies on tribal lands, unless you’re arguing that the tribes can legalize slavery and deny women the vote?

          • slackwarerobert

            And what constitutional right says you can’t try people that would override a tribal court? We need a violence against soldiers law, they can’t try you if you don’t shave it seems.

          • nimrod

            Enrolled tribal members are part of jury pools off the reservation. But non tribal members can’t be on tribal juries, this is the unconstitutional issue.

          • SusanBeehler

            Tribal courts are not mentioned in the United States Constitution

  • Matthew Hawkins

    If you are arrested for a crime in a certain jurisdiction you can be expected to have a cross section of that population as your jury.

    Tribes are semi-sovereign. Federal law can grant them jurisdiction in criminal matters. And if Congress grants them the right to prosecute nontribal members they can.

    This is not unconstitutional.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      If you arrested for a crime in a certain jurisdiction you can be expected to have a cross section of that population as your jury.

      There are non-tribal members who live on reservations. These people are not allowed to serve on tribal juries.

      Tribes are semi-sovereign. Federal law can grant them jurisdiction in criminal matters. And if Congress grants them the right to prosecute nontribal members they can.

      Congress cannot remove constitutional rights through statute.

      It is amazing to me how little respect you have to due process. This law does not protect the rights of non-tribal members accused of crimes on tribal lands.

      How can you not care about that?

      • Matthew Hawkins

        Why can’t tribal members give a fair trial to nontribal members? Are they inherently impartial? Can they not look at evidence and determine its validity?

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          For the same reason why the courts have decided that all-male jury pools, and all-white jury pools, can’t give impartial verdicts to women or minorities.

          • slackwarerobert

            And that would be the judges in our courts are as corrupt as the tribal ones?

        • http://pocketjacksblog.blogspot.com Jay W.

          Does that argument apply to an all-white jury in the trial of a black man? Because everything I’ve ever read or seen tells me that just isn’t so. You’re just being contrarian at this point.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I should clarify and point out that we’re talking about a jury pool, not necessarily a specific jury.

            If a random sampling of a districts population results in an all-male jury, that’s probably not illegal. The problem with tribal courts is that the jury pool is, by definition, made up entirely of tribal members.

          • slackwarerobert

            And the jury pool here is made up of only law abiding citizens, we have plenty of crooks that can’t sit on a crooks jury as well. Slip them a bottle of booze and you will walk, they are all drunks….. Just don’t rob the casino.

          • SusanBeehler

            I think you did not research this very well, is this what some “Republican” fed you? Just a quick google search, I found this
            http://www.icctc.org/tribal%20courts-final.pdf
            “Full faith and credit” is a legal term which means that one court system will honor and enforce court decisions from other court systems. State courts must honor each other’s court decisions under the United States Constitution and federal and state courts must honor each other’s decisions under federal law. See 28 USC 1738. Tribal courts are not mentioned in the United States Constitution, however, and as a result it is still unclear whether other courts must honor and enforce tribal court decisions. One exception is the Indian Child Welfare Act which, at 25 U.S.C. § 1911, does require state courts to grant full faith and credit to tribal court child custody orders.

            4 The United States Supreme Court has declared that Indian tribal courts cannot prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians on Indian reservations, see Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), or crimes committed by Indians from other reservations. See Duro v. Reina, 495 US 676 (1990). Congress reacted to this latter decision by giving Indian tribal courts the authority to prosecute all Indians who commit crimes within Indian Country.

            5 In 1968, in an attempt to ensure all persons in tribal courts certain rights, Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 USC 1301, which gives persons in tribal courts some of the same rights guaranteed persons in federal and state courts under the Bill of Rights.

            6 Congress has recently passed federal laws requiring state and tribal courts to honor and enforce each other’s child support orders, see 28 USC 1738B, and domestic violence protection orders, see 18 USC 2265. Previously, Congress enacted legislation requiring state courts to honor tribal child custody orders as part of the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. §1911.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I’m not even sure you understand what it is you’re copying/pasting here.

            You’re proving my point.

          • SusanBeehler

            They go by the laws of the court, you do not know for a fact it would be an impartial jury, if this has happened or happening, then please reference an actual case. If this one clause is truly the reason why it should have not been supported it would not be too hard to amend it. It is a sham and a cop out for not supporting it.

        • Onslaught1066

          Psssssssssst! Mathew, you’re a retard, quit while you’re behind.

        • slackwarerobert

          same reason blacks couldn’t give OJ a fair trial. crazies can’t be reasoned with.

      • SusanBeehler

        What about the rights of women who have been violated with no “due process” at all; raped, beaten, tortured? What about their rights? How can YOU not care about that? I hope you do not have daughters, because you are NOT protecting them if you are willing to toss out VAWA, you never know when some woman you care about, a daughter, a mother, a wife becomes a victim of a domestic incident or a rape. You can’t go shoot the offender because their is a process to handle the crimes. Rob, you are out of touch with the violence perpetrated against women, I suggest you volunteer at a Women’s shelter and take a few crisis calls and see how the “battle is fought on the front lines” of domestic violence. Attitudes as yours allows the problem to grow and enables offenders to continue to offend.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          You are a disgusting woman. I do have daughters. I have sisters and a mother and grandmothers too, as well as my wife. To suggest that I wouldn’t care if one of them were raped is juvenile, Susan, and probably one of the many reasons nobody takes you seriously.

          It’s called the criminal justice system, Susan, and part of how we reach justice is ensuring an impartial process.

          • SusanBeehler

            If you have two daughters you best get educated on the possible dangers out there, because the apparent lack of knowledge on domestic violence and crimes against women will leave you in a world of denial and may be even misconstrued as non-support if God forbid they would become a victim. You don’t have to take me seriously but your lack of compassion, your lack of knowledge and the apparent belief the perpetrator would have been falsely accused is bias and it will put a barrier between you and your female family members if this would ever happen to them! Open your eyes!!! Your perception is way off!

          • camsaure

            99% Chance they would be victims of liberals or the product of liberalism.

          • SusanBeehler

            99% sure you would kick a “victim” when they are down. Then yell at them for not having a gun, or not protecting themselves.

          • camsaure

            Heh, still won’t admit you are a liberal nut? You prove it many times a day.

          • slackwarerobert

            Not yell at them, ask politely why they are so dumb maybe. Did you learn nothing from the kennedy compound trial in florida? justice can be bought and sold in our courts, there is no rule of law anymore. When you can kidnap a 2 month old, and then when caught 6 years later argue it would hurt the child’s mental well being to take him away from the kidnapper, the rule of law is long gone.

          • slackwarerobert

            Open your eye, buy your daughters guns and take them to the range to learn to shoot it. Push for stronger stand your ground laws so they don’t get raped by the system after they shoot the rapist. Don’t be a victim, exercise your rights.

          • SusanBeehler

            Suprise ,Suprise, my daughter and I have already shot guns. I teach them all ways to self protect. Shooting a gun is not exercising a right. I don’t care much for people who take the law into their own hands with a gun used as judge, jury and executor.

          • slackwarerobert

            Shooting a gun is for practice, stopping an attacker is where the rights are. From your earlier posts you don’t much like the justice system doing nothing as well. That just doesn’t seem logical, either you are willing to let the courts handle your justice, or you are for handling it yourself.
            It is just a judge, the attacker has the option of listening to his lawyer and leaving post haste, or the jury will hold their deliberations in his chest cavity to decide his fate.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Again, I reject your premise. My support for a fair and impartial process for the accused does not mean that I am uncaring about domestic violence.

            I spent ten years working in criminal defense. I probably know more about domestic violence victims than you ever will. But that has nothing to do with protecting due process.

          • awfulorv

            The world seems populated by Bullies, and those who are Bullied. This applies to nations as well as husbands, though, with the latter passion is much more prevalent.

            While in prison a typical inmate spends a good part of his time lifting, so as not to be bullied.
            Why not assign this inmate, as part of his parole, and for a small stipend till he gets on his feet, the job of protecting a women in need of protection, while she is going through the throes of divorce, separation, or simple harassment?

            The details can be worked out but, essentially, our parolee will make it known, to the person of interest, that his parole is predicated on his making sure the woman, and any children involved, are protected, from that time forward.
            Or we could wait until he catches the woman unprotected, and beat the crap out of her, or perhaps kill her, and the children, as we do now.

          • awfulorv

            One also needs to ask why our Supreme Leader seems intent on turning an entire country into the proverbial 98 lb. weakling?

          • SusanBeehler

            It sounds like you are uncaring about the victims of domestic violence. I am a domestic violence survivor,I might not be here today, if it wouldn’t have been for the other women who were their to protect me, to empower me, to support me, and a very few men who understood it. I have spent over 2000 hours as a volunteer getting women to safety and have seen how the courts have failed them time and time again. I don’t think you could fully understand what a woman, a family endures living it every day for years. Both of our backgrounds may be drawing the lines of where we will support one issue over an other. I agree both the victim and the due process need to be protected but for too many years the victim was never even believed. I do not believe we should throw out this bill based on a theory and the untested unconstitutionality of it. The safety of women and children should not be politicized and that I believe is what has happened. I commend Senator Hoevan and Senator Heitkamp standing together and passing this legislation.

          • Lianne

            I had to laugh outloud when I read where you, Susan, tell Rob he best get educated. He is among some of the most learned persons on the blog and in this state. There is an old saying, God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. It would behoove you to do the moern day version of that. sit on your hands, open your eyes, close your ouput until you have actually thought through the input.:-)

          • SusanBeehler

            I am glad I am entertaining, nothing like a good laugh. No one is wise in all things, Rob needs education in a different perspective, his lense is colored. He is bias, siding with “male” “victims” should be seen as male perpetrator. These perpetrators take on many forms, church going, preachers, decorated military, accountants, law enforcement, and than you have what must think they are the boogeyman, the drunk, the drug addict, unemployed, poor, the mentally ill. “Moern”

          • Lianne

            That is NOT what Rob said. Again it is what you are rattling off this morning. Yes, grammer and spelling expert, (sarcasm) thank you for pointing out my misspelled word. If I wanted to take the time to correct all your grammtical errors in just that post of yours, I would never leave the computer.
            Now a bit of info. Just because the bill was labeled Violence Against Women Act, doesn’t make it good or legal. But people like you who hear those words put together in a phrase, latch onto them and defend whatever is in the Act whether it does prevent violence or not.
            And btw, years ago, I admired Heidi for her work on DV. But, like so many good things, she has soured over the years.
            I am not sure what excuse Hoeven has, other than being a wolf in sheep’s clothing or RINO for short.

          • SusanBeehler

            I don’t have a clue of what is your definition of “good” or “legal”. Domestic Violence awareness and the prosecution of it has come much further since the passage of the original act in 1994. It was working so why not renew it? I believe you can’t see beyond your “right” belief to acknowledge something which has been effective. Which Section or Sections is not “good” or “legal”?http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112ldQ8v8::

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I don’t have a clue

            You could have just stopped there.

          • SusanBeehler

            So would you like to give me “Lianne” defintion of “good” or “legal”?

          • camsaure

            AMEN

          • SusanBeehler

            It is disgusting you choose not to be educated on the dangers they could face and a system just 30 years ago would not do much for justice if a crime was committed against them. Read it http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112ldQ8v8::

          • Guest Observer

            Are you just braindead here on SAB or is this all the time? You are unbelievable!!!

          • SusanBeehler

            Thank you! Happy VD DAY to you!

          • Guest Observer

            Are you wishing me a “venereal disease”?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I reject your premise that we cannot both protect women and the due process rights of the accused.

          • SusanBeehler

            I believe we can protect both women and the due process rights of the accused with this bill. You just they it can’t work. Where is the proof it won’t? If this was the problem with the bill why didn’t Rick Berg bring forth the amendment to do what you think it should do? Instead it was voted down. A bill does not have to be voted down if you don’t like one part of it. The house voted it down and the one was voted out because of that vote or at least it contributed to his loss of the election.

          • SusanBeehler

            Tell that to the victims of abuse, domestic violence from the 70’s the 80’s, you are a little young to know what the system was like. Thank god for people like Heidi who had the guts to help turn the system into one that is fairer. The system we have today which arrests “wife beaters” and treats crimes against women and children as crimes did not happen by accident.

        • slackwarerobert

          Do you read what you type? If there is a process to handle the crime, then why do you need another law? You should be carrying a gun and then you can shoot them before they rape you. But if the courts won’t prosecute, then you take care of it yourself anyways. Personally, I would take out the court that refused to lock him up as well to stop the next one from getting away with it. But that is a personal choice you have to make. A new law that only changes who gets screwed instead of fixing the problem is no solution.

        • slackwarerobert

          Be greatfull, if the rape and torture you OFF the reservation, they wont prosecute the poor misguided youth in US courts if they are holders people.

      • SusanBeehler

        This law is about more than “due process” Read it http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112ldQ8v8::

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I have read it. I’m quite familiar with it. I’ve written about it several times.

          And the law is, absolutely, about more than due process. But it also violates due process for non-tribal members accused of crimes on reservations.

          You can accuse me of hating women, and being uncaring about domestic violence, all you want but you can’t get around that simple fact Susan.

  • whowon

    More feel good legislation for the left. What a waste of time, will they get to a budget anytime soon? Let me keep our guns, I will protect myself.

    • SusanBeehler

      If you miss the opportunity to shoot them in the act, you can’t go and hunt them down, if we could carry out the “gun justice” you seem to prefer, we wouldn’t need courts, wouldn’t need anything justice system, because the jury, judge would be flying out the barrel of your gun. Would you want to be the receiver of that justice if some yahoo thought you offended them, they would just shoot you? Women, children are in situations everyday where they are overpowered and cannot protect themselves, they deserve justice and VAWA recognizes the circumstances even if you think your gun thingy makes you “feel good”. A little 10 year old being raped does not have a “gun” to protect them.

      • slackwarerobert

        Only because of obama. I had my first gun at 6. I may not have been able to stop a rape at that age, but before the sun came up I would have stopped them from ever doing it again. You can hide behind the supreme court that they can’t charge juveniles so there is no downside to killing them. It has never been about feeling good, in the summer it is down right uncomfortable when forced to conceal. It is about not being a victim. A hot head who shoots at perceived insult, won’t be alive for long to keep doing it anyways. emotions get in the way of your ability to shoot accurately. It is a two way street, if they can’t prosecute non-indians, then a dead non-indian has no recourse on tribal lands either.

      • whowon

        What new “protection” are they receiving? The court system has always been there. As I said, feel good legislation. Already have the police, courts, restraining orders, etc. Stop allowing yourself to be a victim and act, you don’t need a gun.

        • SusanBeehler

          You do know the number one cause of MURDER in our state is domestic violence, it is the most dangerous situation for our law enforcement to go into, last year it claimed Officer Kenner from Bismarck. Last year we had deaths in Mandan from domestic violence. This is the re-authorization of the law passed in 1994 without all the provisions such as funding the law would be no more. It is not about being a victim it is about empowering through education, safe homes, arrest policies, shelters, domestic violence hotline, crime prevention, PUBLIC SAFETY, National Park safety, rape prevention and education, abuse and exploitation of children. READ the bill if you think it is a “feel good” bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112ldQ8v8::

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Even murderers have a right to a fair and impartial jury, Susan.

          • slackwarerobert

            I would think it is becasue the “victim” usually sides with the attacker and they BOTH attack the cop. I would guess the reason “domestic” violence results in murder so often is you don’t testify at trial. You don’t have to live with a criminal, if you choose to then sleep with a gun you nut. A lot of children died in Connecticut because that mother wouldn’t do that one simple thing..

          • SusanBeehler

            You nut.

          • slackwarerobert

            Two nuts thank you.

          • whowon

            empowering through education…perhaps they need to learn to select better partners, not criminals and drug users. Already read it SB, more fake protection to make women like you feel somehow protected. The women I hang out with don’t need education or some fake protection. So tired of women like you thinking we are somehow weak. Carry on with your useless crusades, you are a joke.

          • SusanBeehler

            I am glad you think I am funny, but domestic violence and rape is not a joke. It is not “fake” protection. Excuse me have you volunteered at a women’s shelter, do you even know what women might be there? It has nothing to do with being “weak”. Domestic violence has to do with “control”. So because you and your friends don’t need it means you should careless about other woman who may need it; aren’t you the compassionate one? Laws are needed to protect those like our children who cannot protect themselves or when another adult cannot protect them or to help an adult protect them. The majority of murders in North Dakota have a direct link to domestic violence. I suppose Sgt Kenner should have selected a different career because he was into “fake” protection? The number one abusers are not drug addicts, they are preachers and those in the military, remember it is not about the act, it is about the “control” these abusers need. Case in point the olympic double amputee who just shot his girlfriend, domestic violence knows no economic, or status in the society, it can happen to the poorest, the richest, the prettiest and the ugliest, it know no boundary because it is all about control. Your circle of friends has protected you from seeing what is in our community.

          • Lianne

            Susan, I am going to jump in here, I am sure whowon will have her own comment, BUT she said YOU were a joke. She said NOTHING about rape or domestic violence being a joke. Again, I suugest to you to close your output until such time that you have digested and fully understood the input.

          • whowon

            SB admitted she is a victim below, nothing will get through to her, victim mentality, she thinks she needs some special protection for her choices. “I am a domestic violence survivor”. No getting through to her.

          • SusanBeehler

            I am not a victim, I am a survivor. It is not “victim” mentality. If you are a shot you are a victim of violence, if you live to tell of it, you are survivor. I don’t need “special protection” but I know in order to not become a “victim” you need protection not just with a weapon, but with knowledge and laws which will holds those accountability if they think can step over someone’s boundaries and harm their spouses, their girlfriends, their boyfriends, their children just because they feel entitled to do so. Gun owners want “special protection” they got a whole amendment they like to use for their “protection” whether the threat is real or not.

          • slackwarerobert

            So what do you think about NY court ruling that you can’t rape a women except in the vagina? would your VAWA help the women there? Oh the threat to the second amendment is real, and that is why your vawa is so dangerous, the same people who are attacking the second amendment would be the ones upholding this law as well. When someone cannot read and comprehend, you don’t give them new laws to misinterpret as well. That is why we cannot amend the constitution, those imbeciles would screw it up in less than 12 months. Take the “flag desecration” one, within a year they would be declaring smog from cars desecrates the flag, and the left kooks would put a flag beside every road to ban cars. Sorry, but until we restore the republic, you are just going to have to protect yourself for a while. Once the constitution is restored and we are a nation of laws, you will find there is no longer a problem anyways.

          • slackwarerobert

            If they are in the military, you have the entire UCMJ on top of the civilian laws. conduct umbecoming, destruction of military property if he gets a sunburn on his backside while riding you. But how could you have not heard of senator kerry and been alone with him? So ask yourself how he got a gun in a gun free zone, he was breaking the law, laws you pass that make his victim turn in her protection so she doesn’t break them. Rip the wire from a lamp and jump start his “feet”. Why no comments about the police in LA shooting the paperboys? I see what is out there very well, that is why I carry guns, and the wife has hers, and the children have assault weapons till they can handle the recoil of the big stuff.

  • SusanBeehler

    “good reason to avoid the reauthorization” Excuse me, Rob, when was the last time you were a native raped on tribal land by a non-tribal member or when did you go on tribal land and commit an offense? I think you do not have a clue about what the difficulties and the abuse WOMEN face. I praise Senator Hoevan and Senator Heitkamp for working together and reauthorizing VAWA. With the influx of the oil companies, non-tribal members are living on the tribal lands and the only jurisidication is Federal to protect tribal members from non-tribal members. A prime example of a non-tribal committing an offense is the recent one of a non-tribal holding up in a house and then the house (which there is a severe shortage of)having to be torn down to get the subject to surrender. Claiming something is unconstitutional based on the case you cited does not make it so, are you also an attorney?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      when was the last time you were a native raped on tribal land by a non-tribal member or when did you go on tribal land and commit offense?

      Well I’ve never raped anyone, Susan, but I’d like to think that if I was ever accused of rape on tribal land by tribal authorities my rights to a fair and impartial jury would be upheld.

      Unfortunately, if this law supported by Heitkamp and Hoeven were to pass, I’d have no such assurance.

      You can claim that I’m not sufficiently outraged about violence against women (and as a father, husband, uncle and son to many women who I love dearly I will be insulted), but I’m going to stand up for fair criminal proceedings.

      Because have you ever been falsely accused of a crime, Susan? I’ve worked on several criminal defense teams of people who have been, and it might do you well to consider their rights too.

      • SusanBeehler

        You have no such “assurance” any where because it is decided by a jury. Voting down this act which helps many women is not a vote against fair criminal proceedings, that is a separate branch of our government. You know judicial branch, this is a vote in the legislative branch, they are separate. A legislative vote is not a vote against the judicial system. Actually I have been accused falsely and it is handle legally through the judicial system, it is not fun, but I also have been a victim and I think the victim has a worse time of being treated fairly. You have “worked on several criminal defense teams” as what a paralegal, a reporter what is your judicial background? A right of a victim is no less than a right of a criminal and actually the judicial system has worked more against the victim in many cases. “What was she wearing?, Why didn’t she leave him?” those attitudes allude to the fact it is somehow the victims fault. Your bias is over flowing even the wife jokes on your facebook page elude to your bias.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Actually I have been accused falsely and it is handle legally through the judicial system, it is not fun,

          And if the pool for your jury had been drawn exclusively white men, you would have been ok with that?

          Something tells me you and lawyer would have objected, and you would have been right.

          Why you can’t support the same for non-tribal members accused on reservations is a blatant display of your unthinking hypocrisy.

          • SusanBeehler

            My false accusation never went before the jury it was thrown out by the judge, because it had no merit, the judge seen it had no merit. Just as a prosecutor has the power to discern whether a case has merit. The judicial system does have in place ways to weed out the falsely accused, some may make it through, but laws are made to protect.

            “Why you can’t support the same for non-tribal members accused on reservations is a blatant display of your unthinking hypocrisy.”

            Because you have not shown that this is happening and prove this is not a theory.
            Who in our North Dakota society is shown more bias a Native American or a white person? Who would need more protection from a societal bias a Native American or a white person?

        • slackwarerobert

          So what appellate court do you go to when a tribal court finds you guilty? You don’t vote down bills, you just don’t get enough votes to pass them, and even if you do, they still have to be signed into law anyways. The repeal of obamacare is a prime example, it hasn’t been voted down, reid won’t allow a vote at all. doesn’t mean they are against healthcare, they are just more interested in oppressing you. If there isn’t a law to allow false charges in the first place you can’t be falsely charged with a crime. Did the VAWA help all those women raped by clinton and the kennedy’s? There is already a law that makes leaving the country to engage in sex that is illegal here a crime, use that to prosecute them. For the life of me I can’t see how a law that will be enforced by the ones DOING the raping will do any good. I could be wrong but I don’t see them locking themselves up in jail. You should be thankfull, OFF the reservation they BURNED TWO homes to get the guy, and you can’t rebuild with ashes, at least dismantling the home leaves you the parts to put it together again. Your oil drillers can be easily taken care of, you make them sign a waiver to be charged or they don’t get the rights to drill. Just like obama is making afghan do.

    • slackwarerobert

      I remember being shot at on tribal lands in the 70’s. Can you opt for the trial by knife fight still, since good defeats evil?

  • Matthew Hawkins

    For anybody interested in research here is the final paragraph of Rehnquist’s decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978),

    “We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many *212 respects their state counterparts. We also acknowledge that with the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which extends certain basic procedural rights to anyone tried in Indian tribal court, many of the dangers that might have accompanied the exercise by tribal courts of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians only a few decades ago have disappeared. Finally, we are not unaware of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today’s reservations which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try non-Indians. [FN18] But these are considerations for Congress to weigh in deciding whether Indian tribes should finally be authorized to try non-Indians. They have little relevance to the principles which lead us to conclude that Indian tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians. The judgments below are therefore

    Reversed.”

    As you can see, the Supreme Court says the ability to try non-Indians is not inherent, but has to be approved by Congress. So the people who matter think Congress can grant tribal courts to try non-Indians.

    • Matthew Hawkins

      Here is the dissent:

      ” Mr. Justice MARSHALL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

      I agree with the court below that the “power to preserve order on the reservation . . . is a sine quanon of the sovereignty that the Suquamish originally possessed.” Oliphant v. Schlie, 544 F.2d 1007,1009 (CA9 1976). In the absence of affirmative withdrawal by treaty or statute, I am of the view that Indian tribes enjoy as a necessary aspect of their retained sovereignty the right to try and punish all persons who commit offenses against tribal law within the reservation. Accordingly, I dissent.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Congress can, yeah, but doesn’t it depend on how Congress does it?

      Your hypocrisy in this matter is astounding. You’d find all-white jury pools to be racist, but for some reason all-tribal juries aren’t?

      Wow.

      • Matthew Hawkins

        Through treaty we have given Indian Tribes a level of sovereignty. I don’t see how that can be if they can’t prosecute crimes on reservations.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          The sovereignty the reservations have is at the discretion of Congress. I think it is a violation of our constitutional rights to give tribal courts sovereignty over US citizens given that tribal courts don’t meet constitutional muster.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            I don’t think you can categorically say all tribal courts don’t meet constitutional muster. The accused is not entitled to a jury of his peers. You are entitled to a jury of citizens of the jurisdiction where you are accused of committing a crime. I don’t think it is a due process issue that for a crime committed on a reservation that the jury is of tribal members. And from the decision I quoted the Supreme Court seems to agree with me.

        • slackwarerobert

          Then we don’t have sovereignty either. We can”t prosecute a diplomat who rapes someone in america either.

  • Camburn

    The VAWA yes vote by both Sen Hoeven and Heitkamp was welcomed. The sad thing is that we even NEED this type of legislation.

    Shameful.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      And you care nothing for the fact that this act is an assault on due process?

  • goodgollymissmolly

    Isn’t a crime a crime? This is just garbage and a way for people like Heidi to get a vote from someone like Sue B who thinks because she is a women she deserves extra rights of protection as opposed to some male being abused by some other male. This is as stupid as Hate Crimes. But that’s why Sue is behind it i guess. God only knows violence against a women is some how different than violence against a man.

  • slackwarerobert

    As always, with a little thinking about the problem, the solution to make everybody happy and works…. Well everybody except the nut case libs who just want another way to screw their enemies. Let the tribal prosecutor try them in US courts. Now you can charge and prosecute these non-indian criminals, and no ones rights are infringed.

  • awfulorv

    I think all football fans will agree that, had Heidi continued her burgeoning career as a Viking interior line person, instead of, foolishly, running for the office of Obama rubber stamper, Adrian Peterson would have easily broken the rushing record last year?

    So, instead of associating her name, forever, with a glorious record she, instead, chose to have it cursed for centuries, as generations of North Dakotans struggle to extricate themselves from the myriad disasters engendered by the tumultuous reigns of Malia, the Great, and Sasha, the not so great.

Top