WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush signed a bill Thursday adding felony-level penalties for activities that promote or encourage animal fighting. The Senate adopted the bill last month, after it was approved by the House. "With this law, we can clamp down on these cruel, inhumane practices," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the bill's chief Senate sponsor. Reps. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., had introduced the House version. Dog fighting is banned throughout the United States and is a felony in 48 states. Cockfighting is a felony in 33 states and legal only in Louisiana. Many anti-animal-fighting laws carry a punishment of no more than a year in jail. Violators of the new federal law would face felony-level penalties and up to three years in prison for knowingly buying, selling or transporting animals across state or international borders for the purpose of fighting. The law also would make it a felony to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal fight, or to buy, sell or transport knives, gaffs and other weapons used in cockfighting. Animal-welfare groups had long urged Congress to adopt stronger penalties on blood sports such as dog fighting and cockfighting, centuries-old traditions that most lawmakers and animal rights advocates now label brutal. "Animal fighting is a barbaric and inhumane practice, and it is fitting and appropriate that we now have a national policy condemning and criminalizing this form of organized animal cruelty," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, which led the push for stronger penalties against animal fighting. The new law should substantially curb the transport of fighting animals across state and U.S. borders, Pacelle said. The Humane Society is already seeing some major breeders of fighting roosters cut back on production, he said. Blumenauer called Bush's signature on the bill a great victory. "After being held up for more than five years, today's approval by the president marks a significant milestone for all of us who worked so hard to stop this barbaric crime and hold accountable those who perpetrate it," he said. LINK
While I agree with action to prevent animal fighting, I'm having a real problem seeing exactly how this is a federal issue...
Even if you read the 'interstate commerce' clause of the Constitution very broadly, the most the feds could do would be to make it illegal to transport animals across state lines for such purposes.
The 'interstate commerce' clause IS used very broadly. The civil rights movement was facilitated through very broad interpretation of it. The feds don't have to determine whether you're transporting animals across state lines. All they really have to do is say that the activity might effect the commerce between the several states. It is what it is.
Michael Vick is a dick. I hope he dies. Then they can feed him to the dogs that were fighting on his property.
Travelling itself isn't a crime. And if it's interpreted that broadly, then anyone committing a crime outside their home state is committing a federal crime.
Way, way, way too broadly. That's the problem. If you're willing to go into enough depth to explore it, anything affects interstate commerce. Such a broad interpretation is the reason we're stuck with this federal behemoth. And that's wrong (I mean: you're right but that situation is wrong). The Constitution, intended to limit federal powers, has now been interpreted into its opposite: permission for the federal government to intervene anywhere and everywhere. The Founders certainly didn't intend it that way and, if one looks at the plain text, the Constitution cannot reasonably be interpreted that way.
And that's how the legislation is worded: transport of animals or other implements in interstate commerce for the purpose of animal fighting is made illegal. Take a look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sec_07_00002156----000-.html and do a search at thomas.loc.gov for "animal fighting."
