Who let the killer dogs out?

[Maryjane]

Vick's consitutional rights could have been violated in this situation if there had been an illegal search and sezure. Virginia code is clear on dog fighting. I for one am glad there are state and federal laws against this brutal sport.

Vick's statement showed no remorse for what he had done. Only that he had been caught in another lie and his NFL career is Kaput! He's had every opportunity to make something of himself and he's managed to piss them all away.

Virginia code for dog fighting...
virginia code dog fighting - Google Search

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Go back and read what I posted. First of all, I'm well aware of what "enumerate" means. I said the Constitution does not enumerate "classes of rights." If you're going to disagree with me then I insist you disagree with what I said and not with your interpretation of what I said..

This is you playing semantics. The word "class" in the phrase "class of rights" is undefined. It could mean "named", it could mean "implied", it could mean any grouping of rights. When I said "class" I had in mind the rights of the "Constitutional" class, so it in fact does enumerate a very specific class of rights...the right to keep and bears arms...the right to peaceful assembly...the right to be secure in your person... all enumerated, all a certain class. So it does enumerate and it enumerates a class of rights. So, it does not matter, you are wrong on both counts.

Quote by: Chancellor This is putting limits on the federal government with respect to those rights..

And thereby granting legal recognition of those rights, and defacto "granting" the right. Conceptually, the founding fathers may have considered them as natural or even required of and between men by the laws of God, but they wrote the document because they realized men don't always obey those laws and they needed to be secured by an ageed to, legal, binding document. They granted these rights, the Constitution granted them, by virtue of it's recognition of their legal status. They are, therefore...GRANTED.

Quote by: Chancellor Again, it's putting limits on the government..

See above

Quote by: Chancellor Again, a limitation on government..

See above

Quote by: Chancellor Again, a limitation on government. Pay attention to words like "shall not be violated.".

If it shall not be violated, it is granted and protected

Quote by: Chancellor Again, limitations on government..

ibid, yada yada yada

Quote by: Chancellor While this may seem to be giving a right, it's really putting limits on government..

blah blah blah

Quote by: Chancellor Again, a limitation on government..

*whistles, waiting for a valid point*

Quote by: Chancellor Again, a limitation on government..

Yawn

Quote by: Chancellor That certain rights happen to be mentioned in the Constitution does not mean those are the only rights the people have and it does not mean that by being listed these rights are being "granted" by the Constitution. By the way, I cited this amendment in earlier posts..

And, the converse is equally true, as i said.

Quote by: Chancellor Again, that certain rights happen to be mentioned in the Constitution does not mean those are the only rights the people have and it does not mean that by being listed these rights are being "granted" by the Constitution. By the way, I cited this amendment in earlier posts. This particular amendment really does show that the federal government was intended to be limited in its scope..

No, duh! Does not alter the truth of my point.

Quote by: Chancellor I don't give a rat's behind that you said something over and over, the Constitution does not grant rights! The rights of the people were presumed to already exist (if you doubt this, go back to the Declaration of Independence). The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government.

If you don't, why should I? You were the one that started with the "I've said it before..."

[Scribbler1]

Just because the Constitution LIMITS government doesn't mean it shuts it down either. There are plenty of federal laws on the books that are not listed in the Constitution.
The framers obviously knew they couldn't see into the future so they let the states and the people decide for the most part what they wanted. But that doesn't stop the federal government from putting up a few laws of its own.
That's obviously why we have the Supremes.

But I think the bottom line is, really, you have the right to stage dogfights, but the government (in line with the wishes of the people) has the right to nail your ass but good when you do!

[Gods_Mercenary]

Football entertainment, rap entertainment, and dog fighting entertainment all seem to be connected to the advocation of violence.

Wait, are you saying that the sport itself advocates violence or that the way the NFL is run advocates violence, because I will not take the former lying down (though I do think the NFL is one of the better run pro sports leagues.)

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Just because the Constitution LIMITS government doesn't mean it shuts it down either. There are plenty of federal laws on the books that are not listed in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not list laws, it limits the power of the federal government. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

The framers obviously knew they couldn't see into the future so they let the states and the people decide for the most part what they wanted. But that doesn't stop the federal government from putting up a few laws of its own.

As long as those laws are within the scope of the federal government's very limited powers, yes.

That's obviously why we have the Supremes.

Actually, the power of the Supreme Court is fairly limited. See Article III of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has been usurping unconstitutional power ince Marbury v. Madison.

hink the bottom line is, really, you have the right to stage dogfights, but the government (in line with the wishes of the people) has the right to nail your ass but good when you do!

The federal government has no such authority and, depending on what's in a particular state's constitution, it's questionable whether the states can do it.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chancellor The Constitution does not list laws, it limits the power of the federal government. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

And just where did I say it DID list laws. It seems that you are one who has difficulty understanding.
The Constitution indeed limits the power of the federal government, but it does not prevent it from enacting certain laws, in this case laws against dog fighting.

You are apparently saying the federal government cannot take away any rights, and that much is correct. But the Constitution does not prevent the federal (or state) government from enacting laws which are specifically designed to limit or deny certain rights under threat of penalty.

Again, you might feel a person has a right to stage dog fights, but it's more the ABILITY to do so, and that stops when they're caught.
That particular "right" is therefore denied by the will of the people and has nothing to do with the Constitution.

The federal government has no such authority and, depending on what's in a particular state's constitution, it's questionable whether the states can do it.

Are we still talking about dog fighting here?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Scribbler1 And just where did I say it DID list laws. It seems that you are one who has difficulty understanding.

Where did I say that you said it listed laws? It seems you are the one with the piss poor reading comprehension skills. I responded to your statement, "There are plenty of federal laws on the books that are not listed in the Constitution" (emphasis mine). I was simply reminding you that the Constitution does not list laws. Of course, you would have known that if you had simply read what I wrote instead of reading into it!

The Constitution indeed limits the power of the federal government, but it does not prevent it from enacting certain laws, in this case laws against dog fighting.

Whatever laws the federal government enacts must fall within the federal government's constitutional limits; otherwise, such laws are unconstitutional (as laws against dogfighting would be).

You are apparently saying the federal government cannot take away any rights, and that much is correct. But the Constitution does not prevent the federal (or state) government from enacting laws which are specifically designed to limit or deny certain rights under threat of penalty.

Actually, the Constitution does prevent the federal government from limiting or denying rights. As for whether these limits apply to the states, that depends on how one interprets the 14th amendment.

Again, you might feel a person has a right to stage dog fights, but it's more the ABILITY to do so, and that stops when they're caught.

Yes, I do think a person has that right and I do think that at least the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from making laws either for or against dogfighting.

That particular "right" is therefore denied by the will of the people and has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Oh really? When exactly did "the people" vote to end dogfighting?

Are we still talking about dogfighting here?

Primarily, yes.

[lsbskins1]

Quote me the Constitutional limitation that prevents the federal government from passing laws against interstate criminal ventures. Vick was nabed by the feds because he transported fighting dogs across state lines for the purpose of committing criminal acts. Show me where the federal government is enjoined from passing a law against that.

[Maryjane]

Oh really? When exactly did "the people" vote to end dogfighting?

It's called a lobby?

The Humane Society of the United States represents more than 9.5 million members and constituents. The non-profit organization is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals, disaster preparedness and response, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research, equine protection and farm animal welfare. The HSUS protects all animals through education, investigation, litigation, legislation, advocacy, and field work. The group is based in Washington and has numerous field representatives across the country. On the Web at The Humane Society of the United States .

(SC) hog-dog fighting illegal and penalties for cockfighting strengthened - AR-News | Google Groups

(bolding mine)

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chancellor Where did I say that you said it listed laws? It seems you are the one with the piss poor reading comprehension skills. I responded to your statement, "There are plenty of federal laws on the books that are not listed in the Constitution" (emphasis mine). I was simply reminding you that the Constitution does not list laws. Of course, you would have known that if you had simply read what I wrote instead of reading into it!

First, I was responding to the thread and not specifically you, so don't get your panties in a bunch here.
I mentioned the fact that there are federal laws to illustrate that the Constitution doesn't limit the government's power as much as you imply. Whether you agree with any of those laws is irrelevant.

Whatever laws the federal government enacts must fall within the federal government's constitutional limits; otherwise, such laws are unconstitutional (as laws against dogfighting would be).

Again, those limits are not as well-defined as you suggest. How you come to the conclusion that laws against dogfighting are unconstitutional is your own issue. I assume there are MANY federal laws you would find unconstitutional, but that changes nothing.

Actually, the Constitution does prevent the federal government from limiting or denying rights. As for whether these limits apply to the states, that depends on how one interprets the 14th amendment.

Again, you are assuming you have the right to abuse animals. And, as I said before, you might actually HAVE that right as defined in the broadest possible sense, but the government, in acting as an instrument of the people, exercise its right to prosecute you for it.
Arguing that since the Constitution cannot grant rights is only half the argument. The PEOPLE have the right to moderate these so-called "rights" if they deem they are unacceptable to society. And they do that, on paper, anyway, through the laws enacted by the government, both federal AND state.
In practical terms, you don't have the right to conduct dog fights any more.

Yes, I do think a person has that right and I do think that at least the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from making laws either for or against dogfighting.

Defending that particular "right" won't win you a lot of support. You know that, don't you?

Oh really? When exactly did "the people" vote to end dogfighting?

Well now, we don't have to get into the meaning of a "representative democracy", do we?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Maryjane The latest and greatist from the mouth of Michael Vick in this morning's guilty plea agreement... From this experience, I have found Jesus!'

Yeah, kinda like Paris Hilton. How convenient it is to find Jesus on the way to the courthouse.

They must have traded cell phone numbers along the way somewhere.