I heard a clip this morning, from an interview that occurred before this case emerged. Vick was asked three things about himself that people may not know. The first thing he said was that he loves animals. Then he said he's a mama's boy. And I don't remember what the third tidbit was. It takes a certain type of individual to get pleasure from seeing animals or anything else suffer. That is an aberration that transcends race/class lines. He needs to get himself some serious emotional help.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

Absolutely. There are so many cases of animal abuse. Much like elder abuse, the victims cannot speak out, which makes the crime that much more heinous.


Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

I think so. When you become a public figure people look to you as a role model. If we cannot find a guy who plays well enough and is also NOT an abuser of any kind, we might as do away with professional sports.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

For those of you worrying about Vick's release in 12 or 18 months, consider this. His acceptance of a guilty plea on the conspiracy and / or gambling charges would constitute predicate offenses for a RICO prosecution. Once he's guilty of 2 predicate offenses, that gives prosecutors the chance to turn state offenses into federal ones, resulting in huge jail time. He basically will have no chance at mounting a defense if he's guilty, and he'll serve decades not months of prison time. Which is probably too harsh in this case.

I am no fan of RICO being applied outside its original intent, but if interstate dog-fighting rings aren't by definition organized crime, I don't know what is.

Decades??? That's the first time I've heard that kind of time tossed around, Carlitoswhey.

From Lester Munson at ESPN.com, a journalist and attorney, a different perspective is offered:

Vick will appear in court again on Aug. 27. What should we watch for?

Vick and the government prosecutors will file papers that give the details of Vick's admissions. The factual details in those papers will be critical. Will Vick admit that in March 2003, he helped Quanis Phillips, one of his co-defendants, hose down a losing dog and then electrocute it? Will he admit that he helped execute eight more dogs in 2004 and 2005, some by hanging, some by drowning and one by slamming it on the ground until it was dead? Will he admit that it was his money that was used in the purses and the side bets in the dogfights described by his cohorts? If he admits a personal role in the execution of dogs and a lead role in the gambling enterprise, he might never return to the NFL. Goodell and NFL officials will scrutinize these papers as they decide what should be done with Vick.

In addition to the details disclosed in the paperwork, watch next Monday for Judge Henry Hudson to set a date for Vick's sentencing. In most federal courthouses, the sentencing comes at least several months after the guilty plea; but in the "rocket docket" procedures that prevail in Richmond, the sentencing will probably come more quickly, perhaps as early as October. Judge Hudson must also determine whether to sentence Vick's co-defendants before he sentences Vick. Tony Taylor, the first of Vick's cohorts to plead guilty and agree to testify against Vick, was to be sentenced on Dec. 14, after he testified at Vick's trial (which had been set for late November). That scheduling was an obvious incentive for Taylor to testify effectively against Vick. But now, with Vick's admission of guilt and the trial off the docket, Judge Hudson may move the date of Taylor's sentencing up, and sentence all three of Vick's co-defendants, including Quanis Phillips and Purnell Peace, before he sentences Vick. All three will be entitled to consideration for leniency because they admitted their guilt and promised to help the federal prosecutors in their case against Vick.

How much time will Vick spend in jail?

Previous reports indicate that the government wanted Vick to spend between 18 and 36 months in a federal penitentiary. Other reports say it could be between 12 and 18. Before the judge issues a sentence, Vick must submit to an investigation by federal probation authorities. Probation officers will investigate his life in painstaking detail, including the dogfighting enterprise. These pre-sentence reports are kept secret and submitted only to the sentencing judge. The report will include a recommendation on a sentence. Judge Henry Hudson will consider the report's conclusions as he sentences Vick. Hudson has been tough when it comes to sentences. He uses the word "maximum" more often than he uses the words "minimum" or "probation." If Vick cannot convince Hudson that he can be a good citizen, Vick will be doing 24 months or more.

ESPN.com

So, while Vick copping a guilty plea is a victory in the battle against dogfighting, one NFL general manager says it doesn't mean he will never play again in the league.

Vick's reputation is forever tainted but if you think Vick will never wear an NFL uniform again please read carefully the following words from an NFL general manager. They will end up being prophetic.

"If he goes to prison, time will pass," said the general manager, who spoke before news of a potential Vick plea agreement and asked not to be identified, claiming the NFL has asked current team officials not to publicly comment on the Vick case. "Months or years will pass, if he does go to jail. If he went to jail, and then left prison down the road, he'd still be relatively young, and there'd be a line of 15 to 20 teams waiting to sign him. Trust me on that. Teams are going to say, 'F--- PETA. F--- the bad pub. This guy is one of the most talented players of the last 10 years. I'll take my chances.'

"Teams may say one thing publicly. But if he gets out of jail, we'll all be looking at Vick hard. We're all whores in football. You know the saying. We'd sign an ax murderer if he has ability. He'll be back. He won't be back in Atlanta probably but he'll be back in professional football. You can count on it." link 2

Vick is already pleading to federal charges in federal court. He hasn't been charged by any state thus far although he could be by Virginia and I also heard South Carolina. I think by pleading now to the federal charges which carry a maximum of 5 years he would avoid any RICO type charges down the line. That may have been what the plea negotiations were all about.

Edited to add a footnote regarding the NFL investigation......

Lest anyone think the NFL is just going through the motions on this, the individual they have heading up the investigation is Eric Holder, former federal district court judge, federal prosecutor and deputy, later acting Attorney General. Not the kind of guy you'd hire if you were looking to sweep something under the rug.

Aquilla

You know what.... I was sitting at lunch today w/ an older man that works on my team. He said something prophetic about one of my closest friends (that we both know). We'll call him Matt. Matt and a fraternity brother of ours decided to drive to Mardi Gras from Baton Rouge at 3am drunk. They ended up running into a ditch just off I 10 and flipping the Jeep they were in. Our fraternity brother was thrown from the Jeep and died. Matt did right at a year in the clink. He carries guilt like a handbag, and of course never meant for that to happen. We ended up welcoming him back. He'd paid for what he did. Matt now has a great job, a cute wife, and 2 great kids.

If Mr Vick goes to prison and pays his dues... maybe America should forgive him.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

Regarding the hashness of this sentence, and the need for "mandatory minimums"- I suggest we have a whole list of folks that need mandatory sentences and prosecutions WAY before we get to Dogfighting-


for instance- in a relatively wealthy city prosecutor's office, we had 2900 (aprox) FELONY ASSAULTS- this means a butt whooping so bad the police officer felt it neccesary to charge the assailant with FELONY assault- by far the majority of assault charges are misdemeanor- this means someone got pounded to a bloody pulp usually, with some intent to kill in reality.

Of those 2900 charged folks- the DA only sent 39 cases to jail- meaning plea deals INCLUDED- where the assailant went to jail. 39 cases total. According to my assistant DA friend, that takes up basically two lawyers full time, in a city of 350k. Each one of those cases cost in excess of 50k to prosecute, if they go to trial.

Now- these are charges where human beings are being treated as easily as badly as those dogs- and we simply don't have room to hold all of them, nor do we have resources to prosecute them.

Bad as dog fighting may be- there are alot of priorities we have to take care of first, dealing with humans.

First of all, if people "are being treated as easily as badly as those dogs", you wouldn't have assault, you'd have first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. So that's apples and oranges.

Now, as far as your numbers are concerned, a few comments. First of all, it sounds like your ADA friend needs a new boss if he's only prosecuting a little over one in a hundred felony assaults. Secondly, police officers don't make the decision on what charges to file in court, that is done by the DA's office. The police may make an arrest based on the belief of a certain violation of the law, but the final decision on what to bring to court is in the hands of the prosecutor. Now, perhaps the police department in your city needs a little education about what constitutes felony assault if the DA's office is only prosecuting 1 in 100 cases.

In any case, it really has nothing to do with the Michael Vick case.

Aquilla

aevans176, the difference between "Matt" and Michael Vick is INTENT. Matt didn't intend to kill his passenger (at least I assume he didn't). By driving drunk, he did act recklessly, and he paid the price for that recklessness. Michael Vick acted with intent to brutalize his animals, he intentionally financed the operation, he intentionally gambled on dogfighting, and he intentionally killed animals that didn't perform. And to top it all off, he intentionally lied about it! There is a big difference between an accident and an intentional action.

This whole Vick Dogfighting thing has gotten way out of hand and the (what ought to be) silly petty charges against him need to be dropped so the man can resume his football career. Why does the media feel a need to make hype over a few dead dogs? Inflame the nation! Save the dogs! Well, understand, there's something going on right now called 'real life', and in that life, a few dead dogs are just a footnote to dead servicemen and their families. And Pit Bulls aren't even your average dog. Even without any training their bodies are equipped for tearing out someone's throat and withstanding many blows to the head with a baseball bat. There's nothing wrong with putting vicious incorrigible animals down. And from the numbers they're talking about, this Vick slob could get about 8 times longer in jail than did that psycho woman who murdered her preacher husband in the back. Leave the man be and chaulk this one up as a "tons of people all over do it, but I got caught" learning experience.

May I please ask you a few questions, why is it that you are not complaining because one George Bush is out in the middle east slaughtering Palestinians and Iraqis? Is it OK to kill human beings but not dogs?


Can you identify the Founding Father who suggested that fedgov have the authority to criminalize dogfighting?

Just wondering.

Your own city should have as high as a prosecution rate as we do. I still can't believe all these resources we have wasted on all this- and for what? Ya, they are dogs, mans best friend, "what about the CHILDREN" is the next thing we need to run around in circles crying.

Bad as this is- it is no more than a nuisance in the grand scheme of things as far as crime and such go in this country.

This ranks righ up there with worrying about Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan.

I have tried to maintain a balanced position concerning Michael Vick. I like animals, think Vick should be punished, but don’t want to max him out, and don't want to rob him of his ability to make a living.

I still don’t, but Vick’s “Jesus” statement leaves me cold. Remember, Paris Hilton was supposedly reading her Bible in jail. So what? I wonder if judges are as tired of the Jesus card as I am?



http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/ny-...,0,569200.story

Um, maybe you should check out other threads on this forum? I do tend to make an appearance calling Bush out on...oh, many things. , but I tend to do it in threads that are ON THAT SUBJECT.

This thread was started to discuss Michael Vick and dogfighting. If you don't want to discuss that subject, the solution is simple - don't. This whole "but there are other, more important things!" argument is hogwash. Just because murder is heinous, should we not have laws against pickpocketing? After all, it's such a minor thing compared to murder. It's a specious argument.

And the Founding Fathers didn't pass laws against a whole bunch of crimes that happen today. Does that mean that laws shouldn't evolve with the times? Come ON. I've talked myself blue in the face about how dogfighting is about more than just dogs fighting. It the majority of cases, it involves guns, drugs and gangs. It's a vicious, brutal activity that has no business in a civilized society.

And Vick's "I found Jesus" mea culpa is just soooo predictable.

The above statement indicates a superficial understanding of The Constitution of the United States. With that in mind, you might go a little easy on the eye rolling. It might come back at you.

The founding fathers did not mention a lot of specifics. Did they mention air travel or telephone line trnsmission? No, we didn't have them then. What they gave us was a broad framework - the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause C, The Constitution of the UJnited States: "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Like trains, automobiles, etc., if the dogs are fighting across state lines, fedeal jurisdiction can be involved.

Were you referring to the US Constitution (James Madison's) ratified in 1788 or the welfare-warfare state Constitution (FDR's) ratified in 1935?




Hummmmmmmmmmmmm

Very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.


Are you claiming that you have never read in the Constitutional Debates that the powers granted were SPECIFIC and ENUMERATED?!?!?!?!?

A friendly hint. Well, two.


HERE is the portion of your post (that you didn't write) where you would link to and quote the relevant portions of either document you just referenced. That way we would know what you are talking about with specificity.


We don't really do the muuuuuuultiple letters, ALL CAPS thing here!?!?!?!?^^^^^ Or the exclamation marks. Take a look around. It doesn't really get your point across like a well-researched post with links would.

The "commerce clause" has been in the constitution from the beginning. It covers just about anything that crosses state lines. You are not showing much grasp about how the constitution works in practice.

Maybe the OP was dictating! You have to consider all the possibilities! Wow, I really can't stop! This is pretty fun! It's like a grammar party! Weeeeee!

A scan through the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers did not return any hits on "Dog Fight", "Dog Fighting", or "Canine Puglisim" - but probably because they don't have thumbs and thus can't make a fist!

And have you never read the debates that there are fundamental moral principles that guide the Constitution? That the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not the only rights that people have? There is quite a bit of literature that examines this theory. (A good place to start for natural law theories of the Constitution would be a book called Beyond the Constitution, by noted scholar Hadley Arkes.) And in fact, doesn't the Ninth Amendment specifically state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not the only rights that people posses? As Bof said, it seems your reading of the Constitution is incredibly limited, and rather elementary.

I take it that stonewalling is permissible? Because the mmmm's and rrrr's did not prevent you from reading the question: Are you claiming that you have never read in the Constitutional Debates that the powers granted were SPECIFIC and ENUMERATED?!?!?!?!?

TaTa

With all due respect to the new guy, what the hell does all this babbling about the Constitution and the Commerce Clause have anything at all to do with dog fighting or Michael Vick?

If there's nothing more to be said about the topic at hand then so be it. Let the thread die a natural death. Hijacking this thread to go off on a irrelevant tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion is annoying and boring.

I recognize that the collectivists and government supremacists want to squeeze in as much of the Communist Manifesto into our way of life as possible using the "Commerce Clause". But the US Supreme Court has recognized that the federal government only has specifically enumerated powers:

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

But in view of the complex system of government which exists in this country, 'presenting,' as this court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, has said, 'the rare and difficult scheme of one general government, whose action extends over the whole, but which possesses only certain enumerated powers, and of numerous state governments, which retain and exercise all powers not delegated to the Union,' the judiciary of the United States should not strike down a legislative enactment of a state-especially if it has direct connection with the social order, the health, and the morals of its people-unless such legislation plainly and palpably violates some right granted or secured by the national constitution, or encroaches upon the authority dele- [155 U.S. 461, 480] gated to the United States for the attainment of objects of national concern.


U.S. Supreme Court PLUMLEY v. COM. OF MASS., 155 U.S. 461 (1894)

May I also remind you that the Colonists had dogs in 1788. Had they wanted to interfere with private property and regulate dog fighting then they would have added the prevention of dogfighting as a specifically enumerated power. But it wasn't. Only the purveyors of the welfare-warfare state dream up those schemes and scams.




Excuse me, but as I understand it the issue was what authority does the federal government has to interfere with Michael Vick's Constitutional and Ninth Amendment right to dispose of HIS property in the form and manner HE chooses.




Excuse me, but as I understand it the issue was what authority does the federal government has to interfere with Michael Vick's Constitutional and Ninth Amendment right to dispose of HIS property in the form and manner HE chooses.






Excuse me, but as I understand it the issue was what authority does the federal government has to interfere with Michael Vick's Constitutional and Ninth Amendment right to dispose of HIS property in the form and manner HE chooses.




My point precisely.

Why are the feds prosecuting/persecuting Mr. Vick if they have no constitutional authority to do so?




"2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.






The Constitution is the Supreme Law Of The Land. It provides a mechanism by which the same can be amended? It hasn't been.

Why is dog fighting barbaric and uncivilized but ignoring the law of the land is not?
Why is dog fighting barbaric and uncivilized but unconstitutionally ruining Mr. Vick's life is not?
Why is dog fighting barbaric and uncivilized but manipulating the government to persecute and prosecute those who you disagree with is not?

Why did the Constitution estaliblish a legislature, if every law they passed would be called unConstitutional by yourself?
Are you saying that for any activity of any kind to be restricted, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment?
Are you denying the very existence of the Commerce Clause, or that it is being mis-applied here?

I would agree with Contumacious that federal laws regarding dog fighting should not be constitutional because of the Commerce Clause. State laws should be the proper court to have jurisdiction. Details of my argument would be better placed within AD in the constitution forum.

It is worth mentioning within this topic that federal involvement in questionable. Dogfighting laws are a state's rights legislative prerogative. Vick certainly should be prosecuted at the state level.

With all due respect to the old guy, what is the legal basis for finding that the federales can accuse Mr. Vick of committing a crime?

Or are you insinuating that fedgov is now populated by angels so their actions are beyond reproach?



Well lets read and find out what Founding Father and 3rd President had to say about Federal criminal jurisdiction:

"2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."


Can you believe that, how about that - no crime against dogfighting. Now I challenge ANYONE to show me where the Constitution has been duly amended to make dogfighting a criminal offense. Go frit. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.



Well lets read and find out what Founding Father and 3rd President had to say about Federal criminal jurisdiction:

"2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."


Can you believe that, how about that - no crime against dogfighting. Now I challenge ANYONE to show me where the Constitution has been duly amended to make dogfighting a criminal offense. Go frit. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.



Well lets read and find out what Founding Father and 3rd President had to say about Federal criminal jurisdiction:

"2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."


Can you believe that, how about that - no crime against dogfighting. Now I challenge ANYONE to show me where the Constitution has been duly amended to make dogfighting a criminal offense. Go frit. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.



Well lets read and find out what Founding Father and 3rd President had to say about Federal criminal jurisdiction:

"2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."


Can you believe that, how about that - no crime against dogfighting. Now I challenge ANYONE to show me where the Constitution has been duly amended to make dogfighting a criminal offense. Go frit. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

Amigo mio, the federales are prosecuting because the dogfighting crossed state lines. Interstate Commerce. It's been written several times, including the post you just responded to. Again, do you deny that there is such a thing as the Commerce Clause, or just disagree with its application here? Transporting dogs and money to gamble and dogfight in many states seems pretty interstate to me.

For a refresher - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

You are not making specific arguments, so it's hard to debate.

Well lets read and find out what Founding Father and 3rd President had to say about Federal criminal jurisdiction:

"2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."


Can you believe that, how about that - no crime against dogfighting. Now I challenge ANYONE to show me where the Constitution has been duly amended to make dogfighting a criminal offense. Go frit. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

The specific federal statute that Vick violated is 7 USC Sec 2156. You can read it here. Excerpting from that statute......



In Vick's case the evidence obtained by federal investigators indicated that he had indeed participated in dog fights involving his own dogs and others from a state other than Virginia. That alone would have been enough to convict him under the federal statute.


Aquilla

This is the third time you've posted the paragraph above. Why don't you come up with a different approach? Judging from the responses, from conservatives and liberals alike, this one doesn't seem to be working. You are diminishing your credibility with each post.

Multiple posting of the same information does not enhance your interpretation.

BTW: I have high regard for Thomas Jefferson, but the world hasn't stood still the past 200+ years.

This the rule as announced by the US Supreme Court -- a statute is Constitutional if Congress had the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to adopt it:

"and if that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the law-making body which passed it, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms."

U.S. Supreme Court
CAMINETTI v. U S , 242 U.S. 470 (1917)

So show me where the prevention of dogfighting is an specifically enumerated Constitutional power. Specifically show me that Congress had the authority to enact 7 USC 2156.

Let me remind you that the fact that they have a powerful standing army and can invade your house and incinerate you and yours alive is not considered a legal authority.





Since you are the one that can not produce any evidence contradicting Jefferson's position isn't that evidence that you and yours are the ones that lack credibility?!?





Since you are the one that can not produce any evidence contradicting Jefferson's position isn't that proof that you and yours are the ones that lack credibility?!?



Since you are the one failing or refusing to produce historical facts contradicting Jefferson's position then I must conclude that the evidence shows that you are the one who lacks credibility!!!

As others here have pointed out to you in this thread and others, your view of the Constitution and it's function is somewhat simplistic and shallow. The Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land, but you need to understand its intended context. It serves as an outline of power, not a codified set of statutes. Otherwise we would have no need for a legislative branch of government at all. What the Constitution does in Article I is lay out what powers Congress has to make codified law .ie. the USC. Part of Section 8 of that article is the so-called "Commerce clause" which states......



Now we can argue until the cows come home about whether dog fighting constitutes "commerce among the several states", and I believe it does and I think I could make a compelling case that it does. Clearly though the Constitution does grant Congress the power to make laws concerning matters that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. In this case, federal laws against dog fighting.


Aquilla

Well, I provided you a Link to <a href="http://"http://laws.findlaw.com/us/242/470.html" target="_blank">U.S. Supreme Court
CAMINETTI v. U S , 242 U.S. 470 (1917)</a> one of the many cases holding that Congress has no authority to legislate where a power has not been specifically enumerated. You provided no evidence contradicting the assertion.

It would make no sense for the Founding Fathers to adopt a Constitution and then leave its enforcement to bureaucratic discretion.

The sad fact is that our Constitutional Republic has deteriorated to a Marxist Republic where a behemoth central government controls everything with the possible exception of flatulating . But dont take my word on since since I am not an expert on EPA rules.





Thank you kindly for the suggestion.

But I would appreciate your indulgence because this case is being "tried" in federal Courts. Federal Courts are Constitutional Courts They are governed by Article III. The only authority they have is the one provided therein. so before we can consider whether the court can impose a sentence we must determine if they have jurisdiction to hear the case.

It would have been different if the case had been considered in the Georgia State Courts because they are common law courts.

Thanks.





Not by me but by the Founding Fathers : Let's see how Alexander Hamilton , answered your question:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


ALEXANDER HAMILTON
January 26, 1788




And you know this how?





Did you mean to say that you don't like the arguments that I making because they are irrefutable?

I have shown where Article III has never been amended in order to confer federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over any matter not specifically identified therein.

So come up with evidence showing that Jefferson, Madison , Alexander Hamilton were wrong.

And I provided you a link to the actual US Constitution and cited the commerce clause which does indeed give congress the right to pass laws concerning activities that involve interstate "commerce". In the Vick case, to keep this somewhat on topic, clearly the dogs involved in the fights crossed state lines, and money was exchanged as a result of that activity. If that ain't commerce, I don't know what is.



If you're still talking about Congress here then once again you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the US Constitution. The Congress does NOT have enforcement powers, that's why the executive branch was created. From Article II. The oath of office for the President.....



There's your enforcement branch, and the prosecution of Michael Vick was conducted by the Department of Justice, a part of the Executive Branch.




A Marxist Republic? Ok...... Moving on....




And Article III grants the following power to federal courts......




Notice the part I underlined. "Arising under this Constitution, <- (look a comma) the laws of the United States....."

Obviously the writers of the Constitution envisioned that there would be laws made by the Congress that weren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution itself. That's why I pointed out the comma. AS far as the Michael Vick case is concerned (still trying to stay on topic here), you might actually want to educate yourself about the facts in this case before you attempt to debate it. For one, the case wasn't brought in Georgia, that's not where the violation occurred . It was brought in Virginia.


Aquilla

Because it's admitted in his plea agreement? (note - PDF LINK)


And in his summary of facts?