Vick / The libertarian view

  • Thread starter Thread starter TRGLDTE
  • Start date Start date
Watermark said:
I'd say protect animals from slaughter for food purposes before you allow them to have what Vick did to them done.
Click to expand...

That type of reactionary thinking is how many laws that are stupid get passed, actually. I'd rather lose me freedom for security. Hey lets pass the Patriot Act! lol....
 
Watermark said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
The General Welfare clause is specifically limited by the 10th Amendment and the Insterstate Commerce clause.
 
Watermark said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Um Watermark, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
 
Cypress said:
Feds can only promulgate regulations pertaining to commercial animal operations. Interstate commerce authority. Feds do indeed have regulations for humane treatment of animals in confined animal facilities, hog lots, and other commercial enterprises.

Domestic pets are a state matter. I think all 50 states have anti-cruelty laws. How well they're enforced is another matter.
Click to expand...

They all have anti-cruelty laws. In Mississippi the fine is 1000 dollar, and the jail time is 6 months (which probably won't even be given out).
 
DigitalDave said:
How can you ban it at the Federal Level? You'd have to pass an amendment that deals with Animal abuse and the word 'abuse' would be so broad that I doubt it could get passed. Boiling Lobster in Maine isn't cruel, but if see Darla's thoughts, it is cruel to her. It's a broad area and might be better left up to the states.
Click to expand...

The federal government seems to be more than willing to, for instance, withold highway funding so that it can pass alcohol prohibitionist measures like forcing states to make the drinking age 21. I think it would be, at least, suitable in this context to remove all of their funding if they had no serious animal cruelty laws.a
 
Damocles said:
The General Welfare clause is specifically limited by the 10th Amendment and the Insterstate Commerce clause.
Click to expand...

The 10th ammendment doesn't limit the general welfare clause at all. Promoting the general welafare is a power that the government gave to the federal government. Saying that an ammendment that said that the federal government can't utilize powers it hasn't been given, in this case, would have no effect on it.
 
Watermark said:
The federal government seems to be more than willing to, for instance, withold highway funding so that it can pass alcohol prohibitionist measures like forcing states to make the drinking age 21. I think it would be, at least, suitable in this context to remove all of their funding if they had no serious animal cruelty laws.a
Click to expand...

They probably argued that a drunk kid can cross state lines after going to the bar and driving.

I have a lot of reasons to remove all of the governments funding, but following our constitution is not one of them. In fact, its not following our constitution that makes me want to just tell them to go F themselves.
 
Watermark said:
The 10th ammendment doesn't limit the general welfare clause at all. Promoting the general welafare is a power that the government gave to the federal government. Saying that an ammendment that said that the federal government can't utilize powers it hasn't been given, in this case, would have no effect on it.
Click to expand...

So are we going to give all animals basic human rights?
 
Watermark said:
The 10th ammendment doesn't limit the general welfare clause at all. Promoting the general welafare is a power that the government gave to the federal government. Saying that an ammendment that said that the federal government can't utilize powers it hasn't been given, in this case, would have no effect on it.
Click to expand...
General Welfare is not a power, it is a descriptive phrase. They are allowed to promote the General Welfare, but not without restriction hence the listing of the powers each branch can use. Specific powers are mentioned. The Amendment 10 was specifically designed to limit the means the government could use to promote the "General Welfare" by presenting that any power not specifically mentioned was a right of the state or the individual.

It is limited by that Amendment. Just as Bush's FBI is limited by the Interstate Commerce clause, so too is the "General Welfare" clause so limited.
 
Point of fact:

Were the government not limited by the delineation of powers and the 10th Amendment all things could be considered "General Welfare" and there would be no limitation whatsoever on the Federal Government in regard to the rights of individuals or of the States.
 
Desh said:
how about just a right not to be needlessly tortured?
Click to expand...

Again, that is a broad statement. What does 'needlessly tortured' mean? Can a farmer shoot a groundhog because they create holes in fields that cause damage to their equipment? Some people would argue that killing an animal like that is needless when you can take the time to trap them then put them somewhere where they can't cause damage.
 
I think people can agree on what needlessly tortured does mean.

Shooting a dog because it is not agressive enough and trapping gound hogs who do economic damage are two very differnt things.

Causing pain and or death for no reason or for illegal gain can be pretty easily written into a law which can be easily understood.

I may not be able to word it correctly but I think a team of legal scholors could do the job.
 
Desh said:
I think people can agree on what needlessly tortured does mean.

Shooting a dog because it is not agressive enough and trapping gound hogs who do economic damage are two very differnt things.

Causing pain and or death for no reason or for illegal gain can be pretty easily written into a law which can be easily understood.

I may not be able to word it correctly but I think a team of legal scholors could do the job.
Click to expand...

They would have to word it to fit into an amendment that can't get interpreted to mean something un-intended. Another problem is, even a federal law won't effect the black-market of dog-fighting. Is dog-fighting legal anywhere in the United States? The answer is already No.

Only Wyoming and Idaho consider them misdemeanors while the other 48 consider it a felony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top