Michael Vick backs bill targeting dog fight spectators

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- From one-time participant to present-day activist against the illegal sport of animal fighting, Michael Vick came to Capitol Hill Tuesday in support of legislation that would criminalize spectators and others who organize the fighting.

While trying to keep young people from taking part, the legislation more broadly hopes to make it easier to prosecute people who finance and arrange the gambling, provide locations for fights to happen and otherwise have knowledge of the activity.

Vick, now a star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, was released from prison in 2009 after serving 20 months of a sentence for a dogfighting conviction. His case involved bankrolling illicit animal fights in the state of Virginia.

"I deeply regret my previous involvement in dogfighting, I'm sorry for what I did to the animals," Vick told a news conference. "During my time in prison, I told myself I wanted to be part of the solution, not the problem."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/19/washington.dog.fighting.vick/index.html

---

Now, to those who are gonna badmouth Vick and call him a hypocrite, I get it, but at least:
- He didn't relapse into crime as many other released prisoners do
- He is taking a stand and delivering a message to those who want to copycat his past sins

I'd say the name here, but I don't want the killer-dog lovers to maul me.

:eyes:

At one time they said the same things about German shepherds, dobermans, and many other breeds that they say about pits today. A pit that is raised from a pup to be a pet, rather than a fighter, makes an excellent pet. And if the hair-trigger nerves can be bred into a breed, they can likewise be bred out of it again.

It's the human element that creates the killer; not the breed of dog.

Outlaw Lions, Tigers and Bears as well.


I cannot come up with anything clever enough to properly point out the straight up idiocy of this post.

So this will have to do...

Labrador Retrievers...That is the breed that cost insurance companies the each year in claims.

However, I assume you are talking about Pit Bulls & I could not disagree more...I have friends who rescue Pit Bulls & they are huge teddy bears...It is all about the HUMAN they are around that makes them into monsters!!!

I don't doubt what you say at all, perhaps they are both true. Number of bites and insurance costs may be different.

A dog will do what ever its master trains it to do.

MEMORIZE that.

have been vicious. In fact, they loved people. Yes, I am a killer-dog lover because none of my dogs have ever been killers. I have a Chihuahua that is nicknamed "Killer" by my son because she tried to eat his hand. My Chihuahua and my Rottie lived peacefully together. The only aggressive one was the Chihuahua. Do you ever see anything in the media about Chihuahuas maiming or killing anyone. No, only the supposed dangerous dogs such as Rottweilers and pit bulls.

are a little less...impressive. But once upon a time Rottweilers were prized as family dogs because they were so good around children, while being very protective of them.

Dogs are what we make of them. Period. The best dog I ever had (and most lovable, loyal, affectionate, ...) was a Pit. Sweetest girl you'd ever hope to meet.

If Vick really has changed, good on him. If it's just an act, he can rot in hell.

I have no problem with him.

who has committed a crime and been caught is sincerely remorseful for what they have done. Having seen him quite a few times discussing his crime, and the path he has followed since his release, I think he is one of the few who truly feels regret for his actions, not just for having been caught.

About another ten years of this, and even *I* might say something nice about him.

I am was VERY DISGUSTED with him & what he did but I personally think he is a changed person & i am very proud of what he has done both on the field & especially off the field since getting out of prison.

However, pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the subject matter of this legislation is reserved to the States.

aren't aware of the 10th Amendment?

I'm no expert on the Constitution, but my impression is that the 10th Amendment doesn't preclude Congress from making new federal laws. They can't require individual states to handle the enforcement of such laws, among other considerations, but I think your blanket statement may be over-broad.

Are you serious? The fedgov cannot just pass any law that of their choosing--even if it is a good law like this one.

Are you familiar with the Bill of Rights? If not, the first five words are: Congress shall make no law.

Here's the rest of it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What does that have to do with the proposed federal law in question? Are you now saying that it's barred under the 1st Amendment too?

regarding Congress making new laws. It appears that you not recognize any limits to fedgov power.

The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the fedgov. The fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1 of the Constitution. Dog fighting is not included.

On the other hand, State laws in the sphere of something like dog fighting are Constitutional, for State govs can act in any sphere not prohibited to them, as defined by the 10th Amendment.

There is already a federal law against animal fighting -- "United States Code Title 7 Chapter 54 “Transportation, Sale, and Handling of Certain Animals.”", otherwise known as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). It was first signed into law in 1966, and has been revised numerous times since then. It is enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS).

True, it does require "interstate or foreign commerce" involvement in order for the federal government to have jurisdiction in any given case (which satisfies Article 1 of the Constitution). But many large dog-fighting operations do involve the animals themselves crossing state lines, or involve use of the mail for conducting business, and this law applies to them.

The proposal in question adds knowing spectators (as opposed to those who truly didn't know an animal fight was what they were about to witness) at these events, especially those who allow children to attend, to the list of people who can be prosecuted under the existing federal law when it applies in a given case. Being a knowing spectator is already illegal in 49 states, the aim here is to make it a federal offense as well.

So yes, though there is Constitutional separation of powers between the federal government and the states, there have been and there continue to be new federal laws (and revisions to older ones) written and passed since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

As for Vick, he probably knows quite a bit about the subject. Though he was prosecuted under federal conspiracy charges, a new federal law (The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007) amended a section of the AWA and increased the penalties, along with adding certain items as forbidden to be sent through the mail, in the aftermath of his case. I'd be willing to bet he's as aware as anyone of the rights and powers of the federal government in prosecuting animal-fighting cases.

In view of that, where is the crisis that must be solved by our fearless representatives?

Don't misunderstand, I have no issues whatsoever with laws that prevent the abuse of animals. However, we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and I think we need to reign in the tendency to enact feel-good legislation that is in many cases, a duplication of effort. We simply cannot afford it.

Take, for example, the recent case that was dismissed against Roger Clemens. The Justice Department spent millions investigating and bringing this case to trial, which resulted in a mistrial on the second day. With the exception of drugs that are actually transported interstate, banning the possession of steroids and other drugs at the federal level is not within the sphere of what is delegated to it in Article 1.

Over time, the fedgov has crept into each and every minuscule detail of our existence, to the point that they have lost focus of purpose of their existence: ...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

As a result, our fundamental essentials, i.e., SS, Health Care, have suffered from a lack of management and $. Our representatives are more concerned with the power that an ever expanding government brings them, than doing the jobs they were hired to do. Furthermore, they are in violation of the oath they took they day they were hired on. They have spent all of our money and a great deal of our children's money. We cannot afford to let them continue unabated.

Article 6, Clause 3 - The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution.

of his dogs through a large donation to Best Friends. One of his dogs still lives there.

www.bestfriends.org

I'm sure he can afford it.

why do we care what Michael Vick thinks about anything?

He was a quarterback. If there are questions about football, ok he'd be a reasonable person to ask.

But we don't call up senators to ask them about football plays, why ask football players what they think about politics?