Another unconstitutional law to encourage federal government meddling - Trump signs federal ban on animal cruelty
Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago to Politics
Should people torture animal? Of course not.
Should this be any business of the federal government? H-E-L-L NO!!!!
Necessary and proper? NO
Should this be any business of the federal government? H-E-L-L NO!!!!
Necessary and proper? NO
People simply ignore them, anywhere they can.
Totalitarian rule starts with enforcement.
logically, go along with the idea that animals have rights, like human beings. I do not think that the government should be involved in committing animal cruelty, however. People who don't believe in such cruelty shouldn't be made to finance it. But as for citizens' doing it on their own, I think that can be handled by boycotts and other forms of ostracism.
Or you think it is enough to condemn it at a personal level but let the creeps abuse animals unpunished and hope they will get reformed on their own?
If it's that important to you then create or join a group and change the local laws.
It is not something that a central government has the authority to do.
I know you don't want the personal feelings of others in NY, DC, Chicago, etc to dictate what actions are correct for you. You have expressed that position hundreds of times here in the Gulch.
Self government demands that we respect the rights of others, not to use the federal government to dictate over others with unconstitutional laws. Convince others that your argument is valid and get them to change local laws.
Hundreds of times? Wow! I should have made a count and lead a journal on it.
You are demanding purity in a dirty world. It'll never happen and you need to make distinctions not rigidly apply principles.
That is what Trump is doing and it is the only way until the dirt can be reduced to the level that we may apply principles again.
Apparently you want to exceed constitutional limits when it appeals to you (as in this particular case.) The liberals that you dislike want to exceed constitutional limits when it appeals to them. You have made hundreds of posts against the liberals trying to do so.
While I agree with the goal of protecting animals from torture, the law is unconstitutional. The goal of the law is not relevant. If you want a federal law to do something that is unconstitutional, then there is a process to change the constitution.
I do not consent to have my rights and liberty destroyed by illegal acts of the federal government. No leader gets my consent to pass unconstitutional laws due to arguable circumstances. Not Trump, not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton, not Reagan, not Carter, not Ford, not any member of con-gress, not the Supreme Court, no one. Dictatorship is created from such action.
Principles do matter.
Conservatives promoting the contradictory notion of "states rights" are advocates of statism and collectivism even while opposing much of it for the Federal government. They are often national statists, too, but are certainly state statists. Their arbitrary fixation on restricting only the Federal government reveals a complete lack of philosophical principles. The Constitution is not the basis of all political discussion, immune from criticism and implying that anything goes at the state level..
This is all much broader and more fundamental than a-philosophical anti tax rebels and activists futilely obsessing with pseudo legal arguments over a legally impossible "sovereignty".
It makes no sense to debate this issue.
Question is: who is going to enforce it?
This reminds me of the sci-fi novel by Arthur Clarke "Childhood's End".
In it, a superior alien race controls Earth after humans drove the planet and life in it to the brink of extinction. They bring prosperity, peace and a happy period to humankind.
One of the first things they implemented was banning cruelty to animals. During a bull fight feast, as thousands were ready to immerse themselves into the "joy" of watching the bull die a horrific death, at the first throwing of the lance at the bull by the picador, the arena cries out in unison, feeling the same agonizing pain as the bull, by the order of the controlling aliens.
The ban of bullfight was implemented next day.
I see this differently, so let's agree that we disagree.
Please revisit what a republic is. Put aside your myopia for 10 minutes and understand that you live in an actual reality where there are governments and, at least in this one, where the federal government is supposed to be subservient to the state government which is supposed to be subservient to the people it's been constructed to represent.
We do not live in text books no matter how much we canonize an ideology. States are more representative of the will of its people than the fedgov can ever be. Having 50 individual laws to handle the matter is much better than a one size forced to fit all.
There is no such thing as the "rights" of a state. That is a collectivist notion. No government at any level may morally do whatever it pleases, with or without the "will of the people" using government to trample the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights.
For all your irrelevant snide pretentiousness you did not address that. This is about real individuals here in reality; it has nothing to do with "living in textbooks" nor is it about your arbitrary assertion that "having 50 individual laws to handle the matter is much better". You have no right to use any level of government to violate others' rights in accordance with what you think is better for us.
You can deny States having authority all you like but a Constitutional republic is exactly that. The people create States (a governing body) to administer certain responsibilities common to all. States (as a composition of the people who made it) create a federal government to handle responsibilities common to all the States, not the individual. People have the rights, they empower States with certain rights which in turn empower a federal entity with certain rights all to carry out specific duties. The trickle down always stops with the individual by way of the State, this is 'supposed' to be our society. This is how our republic was supposed to work.This is why I suggested you revisit what a republic is.
As it related to the subject (animals) the States are better positioned to represent the will of its people than the federal government can be, this is by design. There is no one size fits all solution for a variety of things the federal government chooses to enforce (all entirely outside of their mandate). You know this, and yet you chose to soapbox for a lesson on 'rights' when we talking about Constitutional jurisdiction to make law.
"You have no right to use any level of government to violate others' rights in accordance with what you think is better for us."
This is not the reality we live in as evidenced by the fedgov trying passing this EO. This is why myopia was used, not an insult, just economy of words.
Even you would agree, in this reality, better to have the rules closer to the population and its will then some far away entity that we have little control over and ability to monitor and reprimand regularly?
It has to do with the responsibility of man to control and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with the animal kingdom from which humans "evolved".
There is always a degrading aspect of treating other species as inferior. Animals are not subjects of fun to shoot them during a rally of like minded hunters who think that taking a life is justified for their pleasure.
There is no "responsibility" of man to ensure that animals "benefit" from our actions. It is a baseless assertion attempting to impose the meaningless notion of animal rights, subjugating man to the interests of lower animals. So is the anti-hunting movement.
And why the scare quotes for "evolved"? Our rights depend on our nature as the rational animal, not on evolutionary biology. The lower animals are biologically inferior; they did not evolve to the superior, more advanced level of man. We don't have an obligation to ensure that fish benefit either.
That is the kind of pompous, belligerent personal attacks typical from him when his conservative false premises are rejected. His repetitious conservative slogans claiming to appeal to the Constitution are laced with this abuse as he tries to concoct an emotional force to his non-arguments.
He has still not addressed what I wrote, which he smears as a "soapbox" for rights. His desire for government to be more local does not give him the right to use any level of government to violate the rights of others.
Ashinoff's appeal to the "will of the people", without regard to limiting all government to protecting individual rights, is communitarian tribalism. He sounds like something out of a 1960s SDS meeting clamoring for everyone to vote on what anyone can do, ignoring any rights of the individual to be free of the collective rule.
Ashinoff is at root a collectivist following conservative "tradition", with dismissive contempt on principle for the rights of the individual. He admits that animals don't have rights and still wants animal rights laws violating human rights, imposed in the name of the "will of the people".
His claim that people "empower States with certain rights which in turn empower a federal entity with certain rights all to carry out specific duties" is false. No government acts by "right". Only individuals have rights. No level of government is morally free to do whatever it wants in accordance with some pressure group's demands, and no "will of the people" can morally "empower" it to do so.
Ashinoff is a conservative statist dismissing rights on principle as a "soapbox for a lesson on 'rights' when we talking about Constitutional jurisdiction to make law". No, that is not what "we" are talking about and no appeal to the rights of the individual is a "soapbox", despite his conservative contempt for the principle of individualism. No government "jurisdiction" may properly violate anyone's rights and the Constitution does not justify Ashinoff promoting that for either his state or local collective.
He illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the worst of the conservatives appealing to the "tradition" of the "Constitution" for whatever they want to impose, obliterating principles of moral and political philosophy.
The Constitution was a political, not philosophical, document defining the organization and limited functions of a national government. The Constitution is not the logical basis of all political discussion. It is a derivative document of limited scope, not a primary and not a fundamental of political philosophy.
The Constitution was not without its flaws but attempted to implement a commonly accepted Enlightenment concept of the rights of man with a national government of limited powers. It did not say, and does not justify, the claim that states or local governments may do whatever they want, either politically or in morality. There is no such thing as a "right" of a state or any collective or government.
Our rights are now violated all the time. Ashinoff demands that appeal to what is morally proper be ignored. "This is not the reality we live in", he intones, and then proceeds to double down on the immorality while cynically rejecting objections as an irrelevant "soapbox" for "rights".
As stated before, not that it will matter (based on past encounters), this is about the Constitutional jurisdiction to make law. Pay attention: My initial and subsequent posts weren't about rights in any way. Look at my first post in this thread for where I stand on the matter. Never mind I'll do that for you "Agreed. This is excessive and an unjust use of authority. Yes animal abuse should be criminal. A federal crime? Hell no."
I'll take it one thought process further for you "in this reality, where these EO's and laws are passed, its better to have them locally where they better represent the people of each state, where the people of each state can tailor them to how they see the situation, and where politicians can be held accountable and the laws can be repealed more readily. Say what you will, the REALITY is these things will and are actually happening in the REALITY we live in.
You're damn right I'm Conservative. I've been saying it since day 1 on this site. I don't apologize for it.
Twist and contort what I said to fit your narrative all you like (true to your history, since you will anyway), 2019 is almost over and, thanks to this reminder, I'll start 2020 ignoring just ONE person again. You have the sole distinction of the dozens of people who've debated and discussed things with here to be the only one I ignore.
Where are the Hallings? LetsShrug? LibertyPirate? MichaelMarotta? Man, at least those guys were intellectually honest (and less impressed by their own words) when the differences between Objectivisim and Conservatism became evident in a subject.
Ashinoff is an authoritarian conservative traditionalist embracing the collectivist notion of the "will of the people" (and elsewhere religious mysticism) as the source of political justification. He can believe whatever he wants but has no right to demand to "frame" discussion here in such terms fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand and the purpose of this forum, which he constantly abuses in his warrior campaign exploiting this forum.
His angry sneering outbursts of deliberate, openly acknowledged snide personal attacks and false accusations of dishonesty attempting to intimidate and smear are not rational response.
Neither is his 'ostrich strategy' of dramatically pronouncing that as a matter of policy he "ignores" refutation and rejections of his abuse, which are not "stabs". Others can read the responses to him whether he likes it or not. His refusal to engage in discussion of individualism and its moral basis in favor of militant "proud" promotion of its opposite, while personally attacking those who reject his dogmas, means that Ashinoff does not belong here, and do not stop others from seeing what he is.
Show me a state or court that hasn't come down hard on these cases.
Owner's of animals already have protection - their rights are violated when someone harms their animals. But animals themselves do not have rights.
We may not have to wait long before this is tied to gun control again - e.g. hunting,
Values. One could argue that a federal law banning the abuse of women in Sharia law is meddling. I know the lefties would.
And, once again - no offense. Just not feeling it... Disclaimer: I have not read the law.
Almost everyone has their own pet peeves and insist that "someone should do something". The federal government has no business at all responding to any of these unconstitutional requests regardless of how attractive they may be politically. There is a process for dealing with these. It's the constitutional amendment process, and it is purposely very difficult. In spite of the difficulty it has been used (and misused) in the past. Circumventing that process has created many unconstitutional laws like the one Trump signed.
Thank you. The Patriot Act, especially, is a despicable law, all wrapped up in the red, white and blue. It should be abolished (should never have happened). And we should be bringing Edward Snowden home and honor - not punish - his brave acts. (edited for incorrect tense).
48.
Animal crushing
(a)
Offenses
(1)
Crushing
It shall be unlawful for any person to purposely engage in animal crushing in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(2)
Creation of animal crush videos
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly create an animal crush video, if—
(A)
the person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B)
the animal crush video is distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.
(3)
Distribution of animal crush videos
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commer
https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-c...
Then the jerk has the nerve to say she is "sorry", and does not know why she did it.
She should be dragged by the neck like she did to the horse. Maybe she'll remember why she did it. Loosing her job was the minimum that happened to her.
She has remorse now after being caught.
True, the government should not be meddling but if it doesn't, animals continue to be abused b/c states will never take it up.
If you spend time and dig deeper of what jerks are doing to animals, you'd agree that this has been long overdues.
The article does not mention starving which is practiced nationwide, and should be included.
However, it is not the purview of the federal government and this is a perfect example of why there are so many laws interfering with our liberty.
Everyone has their pet law and almost no one wants to get out and work to get them passed locally where they should be implemented.
"states will never take it up"
States don't take it up because people do not expend the effort needed to get it done at the constitutionally acceptable level.
Instead you (and almost everyone else) let the federal government gradually take over our lives and destroy our liberty.
The only one with the info! I couldn't help but
laugh also!!! Unbelievable!!
However, the times we live in are anything but normal, our lives under attack by progressively radical elements, implementing their own "laws" to gradually prevent even free thinking, let alone action.
The government is a major abuser and this abuse received several blood transfusions during Obama's tenure.
If at least one law pushes the handle a bit to the direction of normalcy, I welcome that.
"Instead you (and almost everyone else) let the federal government gradually take over our lives and destroy our liberty. "
Stop there. The Trump government is not destroying our liberty, I am sure you are aware of that and used this sentence only for rhetorical effects. We know what he has been trying to do since he walked into the WH. It would be a bad mistake to generalize from this example.
There is another side to this. I am sure you are cognizant of the link between cruelty to animals leading to a criminal offense. It has been conclusively proven by facts. So the idiot in Alaska who, with his son walked into the lair of a mother bear hibernating with her cubs and shooting them to death deserved more than the few years in prison he was sentenced to. Great example dad was teaching junior to. And if you have seen the smirking photo of the two slime after being apprehended, you may see this differently.
Times are never "normal" (although I concede that current events are often more insane than at any time in my memory.)
We have been in a "state of emergency" as far as the federal government is concerned since 1933. In this 1973 report , the U.S. Senate admits that the Emergency Powers given to the President (Franklin D. Roosevelt) under the pretense of the National Emergency of 1933 have remained in force and that the normal function of the Federal government has been suspended.
https://archive.org/details/senate-re...
No, government school history courses never touch this issue and these laws rarely have sunset provisions.
Normalcy will more likely come with repeal of unconstitutional laws and a return of the common honorable men/women to serve in con-gress..
I can name many which are much more abusive than protecting animals and the nation would be well served by abolishing them.
It would be more useful to concentrate on those than single out this one.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes, there are thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books. They are there because someone insisted "someone has to do something" even when it is clear that the federal government has no authority to do so. I am not "singling out" this law. It is just the latest in a long history of the federal government breaking the law of the land in order to gain power over the people. Unconstitutional laws are always claimed to be for good purposes, and they are always used to expand government power beyond the constitutional limits, and making excuses for more of the same.
It is not hypocrisy to support one unconstitutional law while opposing all other unconstitutional laws?
Self government demands that we respect the rights of others, not to use the federal government to dictate over others with unconstitutional laws.
No.
"Self government demands that we respect the rights of others, not to use the federal government to dictate over others with unconstitutional laws. "
You are fully aware that this has never been the case. There is no such thing as "self government" that compels people to respect the rights of others, Those in force make sure that one group hates the other, legally.
Rhetoric about "the times we live in are anything but normal, our lives under attack by progressively radical elements" is not an excuse to punish people for doing things exceller doesn't like, and such desires to violate the rights of individuals to impose one's will are not the meaning of "a bit to the direction of normalcy".