10

Another unconstitutional law to encourage federal government meddling - Trump signs federal ban on animal cruelty

Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago to Politics
91 comments | Share | Flag

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
SOURCE URL: https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/trump-signs-federal-ban-on-animal-cruelty/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    As much as I am outraged by animal cruelty, I can't,
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    This is truly a bad precedent.
    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,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Yes, there may be a justification for a state or local law prohibiting putting someone's possible pet to death because it was brought to the pound. (Because of what it does to the owner). But that is different from saying that the animal itself has civil rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I don't agree with any new laws, Federal or State, as long as we still have existing laws going unenforced! Cruelty to animals does touch a raw nerve yet I continually see the devastating actions by very evil people allowing animals to starve to death and here in my state it is a simple misdemeanor and they get a slap on the wrist where they should go directly to jail and for extended periods. I can't speak on the legal ethics or if the state or feds should be involved but IMO strict and severe punishments should be in order wherever animal cruelty is found.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tdechaine 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      As I said, animals do not have rights. Punishment for harm done (unless to animals owned by people) is wrong - despite anyone's feelings about them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        "(unless to animals owned by people)". This is exactly what animals I am referring to in my comment. Maybe I should have said PET Animals to be more clear and this would include horses and even other farm animals left to starve. Wild game animals already have legal protections as do farm raised food animals.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          The harm to rights is done to the rights of the owner. Animals do not have rights. The concept does not apply. No level of government should be punishing people for violation of 'animal rights'.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    This should a States Right issue, not for the Fed Gov. This issue was lobbied by the myriad of animal rights organizations. A lot of these animal tortures are posted on Facebook which ends up making people angry and in turn, they urge their respective congressman to do something about it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      States do not have rights and neither do animals. Both the states and the Federal government should be restricted to protecting the rights of individuals, not "animal rights" or doing whatever they want in the name of "states' rights".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Agreed. This is excessive and an unjust use of authority. Yes animal abuse should be criminal. A federal crime? Hell no.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Then how do you advise to control it?

      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?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Grassroots activism at the local level.
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Self government at any level does not necessarily respect or demand that we respect the rights of the individual. It depends on what the people in the society believe. A small town clique running local government can be more oppressive than Washington DC.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          "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."

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            I want the constitutional limits that are the law of the land to apply.
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              And then why should your rights and liberty be destroyed by acts of the local or state government?---(to freedomforall).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                The US constitution only has specific restrictions on where federal power has control over state, local, and the people (and that is what I am commenting on.) That leaves the people to restrict their state and local governments in their constitutions. I agree that the people should not have their rights restricted unless they give consent. If the people do give consent, under the form of government we currently practice, they can have their liberties restricted. Some researchers maintain that the people can still choose sovereignty instead of citizenship by not accepting social security and other federal entanglements. Unfortunately, the practical side of living today makes such a choice extremely difficult, nearing impossibility. (No social security number means most employers will not offer employment, no bank will allow a bank account, getting credit would be nearly impossible (and a credit card impossible which greatly limits action as a consumer. The upside is no income reporting or tax assuming the sovereign doesn't consent in any other way.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                  This is not a matter of the Constitution, which is a non-philosophical political document describing procedures and limited functions of a national government. In its limited scope and function it does not imply, either legally or morally, that state and local governments are free to do whatever they want to violate our moral rights in accordance with a collectivist "will of the people".

                  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".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Chain the abuser to a stall with no food or water for 3-5 days and lets see if this fixes it. Ask me why I am not a G Man!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Yes, that sounds a very effective way of making the creeps think (if they have a brain).

          Question is: who is going to enforce it?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            I would volunteer for the position!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              Atta man!

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Local governments in each state set their policies and punishments. Simple. No top down lordship needed. If people give a damn in the state it gets done without interfering with other states right to self determination. Life in a proper more constitutional republic.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          There is no such thing as "states' rights". Only individuals have rights, which are not to be violated by any government, including states.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            Breaking my tradition of ignoring you once again. It must be the approaching holiday.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              Please keep your snide insults to yourself. They do not belong here.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                I wasn't being snide. Animals do not have rights.

                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?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                  This has nothing to do with animal rights.

                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                    Of course it is about animal 'rights'. It is a law controlling human beings on behalf of animals. There is no"responsibility of man to control and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with the animal kingdom from which humans 'evolved'." That is collectivism escalated to include animals.

                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  This is what Ashinoff wrote that he denies is snide: "Breaking my tradition of ignoring you once again. It must be the approaching holiday. Please revisit what a republic is. Put aside your myopia for 10 minutes and understand that you live in an actual reality... We do not live in text books no matter how much we canonize an ideology."

                  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".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    Ya' sure are good at framing things in the context you want to discuss. Look at you feeling all empowered as you take stabs. Yes, that is me actually and deliberately being snide.

                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      The "context" of discussion of political fundamentals is the rights of the individual. Ashinoff's demand to reject that, especially on an Ayn Rand forum, demonstrates his own authoritarianism. Rights are not to be flippantly dismissed as a "soapbox". Rights do not disappear depending on the "jurisdiction". His 'real politic' insistence that in "reality" our rights are being violated does not justify his advocating it, and neither do his false appeals to the Constitution.

                      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.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        There are creeps engaging in all kinds of immoral personal behavior. It is not a reason to appeal to big government controlling people. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not controlling people whose actions you don't approve of.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    The towns, cities, states and courts already do a good job of prosecuting animal cruelty...no need for a "Federal' law.
    Show me a state or court that hasn't come down hard on these cases.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    We all have different values. I'd advise gathering any anguish you have over this and apply it in a manner that would encourage the feds to get rid of the Dept. of Education, the Patriot Act, etc... No offense but this smacks of woke conservatism. I saw the memes going around on how the hardcore lefties would suddenly be in favor of animal cruelty now that Trump signed this. Cracked me up...because the best humor is founded in some truth. Let's not fall into that trap, please.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      I am consistent in support of the constitutional limits on the federal government. Yes, it should repeal the laws that created the DOE and the Patriot Act, and thousands of other unconstitutional laws. That is the (perhaps not obvious) point here.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Abaco 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        I understand, completely. I have an innate appreciation for "consistent support of the constitution". But, in reality it reminds me of something an old-timer once told me. You can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first. The brutal reality is that our government is going to interfere...pretty much in all things. I feel your pain...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ gharkness 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      "encourage the feds to get rid of the Dept. of Education, the Patriot Act, etc"

      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).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    You might want to read the actual text of the law before you comment. I have exercised self-control and not Pasted the entire text of the new law here, but for your ease of access, here is the first clause. (The rest may be found at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...

    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
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Indeed. The one major conservative/libertarian position that Trump has not gone along with is federalism. I only hope some of the judges he appointed will surprise him on that issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      The only one? He raised taxes through tariffs and income taxes as a double tax, is promoting a government "replacement" for Obamacare, is promoting "infrastructure" boondogles, and much more.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Fully support it.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      I knew you would support it, and I understand your point of view. (As a limited local law, I agree with it.)
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Animals don't have rights. The concept does not apply to them. Every immoral act is not subject to laws banning it. Impose animal rights laws and you have granted a false premise with no end of bad consequences. This is more fundamental than what level of government does it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ puzzlelady 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Animal defenders also object to slaughter houses and methods of slaughter, more so even than to isolated cases of mistreatment of pets. Confining animals in tight cages and coops is also defined as cruelty. Eventually animals may be phased out of the food chain, unless world-wide food shortages and famine send humans back to meat consumption or even cannibalism. I personally would like to see more attention paid and objections directed at cruelty to other humans, such as torture, murder, drones, bombs, invasions, sanctions, wars, confiscation, and plunder.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          I agree that the people have the rights and they can establish laws in an effort to discourage actions that the people define as undesirable. The constitution restricts what laws can be made by the federal government by defining actions that are the purview of the people and the states, not the federal government. This law should have been left to the people to decide and not by the federal government. The states or the people decide if animals are to be protected in any way; they may decide poorly or they may decide wisely.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            Laws not made in accordance with rights are unjust and improper no matter what the level of government. Let "the people" decide is tribalism. No one has the right to punish "actions that the people define as undesirable", which is statism based on collective subjectivism, and results in one group imposing itself on everyone else no matter what the level of government.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        I see your point and under normal circumstances I'd concur.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          This law is unconstitutional unless implemented at a lower level. In spite of that, no one will take it to the Supreme Court because PETA would denounce them as animal haters, when in reality they would be defenders of individual liberty.
          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..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            What makes a law unconstitutional?

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              Read the entire constitution. It was intended to restrict the actions of the central government to only those things explicitly stated. The ninth and tenth amendments underscore that intent:
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                "It is not hypocrisy to support one unconstitutional law while opposing all other 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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  The question of hypocrisy assumes support for the Constitution. If one opposes limits on government power, with government restricted to protecting the rights of the individual, or if one openly embraces contradictions and pragmatism, then it's not hypocrisy.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ exceller 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            Freedom, I know you are passionate about this issue but I if there is only ONE law in this country that is unconstitutional and it concerns animals, I am more than happy to take that stigma and be punished for it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              You don't decide what laws are ok to be unconstitutional. That principle has resulted in constant pressure group warfare with different groups demanding different contradictory laws, all violating the rights of individuals. Some of them are constitutional and still unjust and improper.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Passing laws on behalf of alleged 'animal rights' most certainly does destroy our rights. There is no "conclusive proof" that cruelty to animals "leads to", i.e., causes, criminal behavior. They are distinct actions. If and when someone commits an actual crime, then prosecute it.

          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".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo