ColbyCosh.com

Huh? I know the interstate commerce clause is brutally overstretched and overused, but come on: if a national dog fighting ring is not exactly the type of interstate commerce that is begging to be "regulated" with a vengeance, I don't know what is.

If your comment is that the local guys were doing a bang-up job of working on this, and the feds shouldn't be pulling rank, I have to disagree: the local sheriff seemed not to have any clear idea what he was doing and if I remember correctly, at one point he practically begged the feds to come in and take the case off his hands.

Sorry, I just realized you may have been asking for a pinpoint citation :

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

On the contrary, I'd say that if the states can't set and enforce animal-welfare policy, I don't know what could possibly be left to them.

I'll grant that the 20th-century "any crossing of state lines is 'interstate commerce' ipso facto" principle is slightly less odious than the new "Anything that could conceivably be transported across state lines is 'interstate commerce'" adopted by the Supreme Court in recent marijuana cases. It doesn't mean I buy it.

Nor, necessarily, should you. There's good evidence that the Commerce Clause has been more hard done by than most others. I'm a living tree guy, not a dead tree guy, but strict constructionists are right to complain a bit about this one.

But on the currently generally accepted basis of what the commerce clause empowers the federal government to do, this one's a no-brainer in my view. There's a public policy aspect of this one a mile wide, right up with forbidding the transfer of slaves or prostitutes or dope or alcohol across state lines (classic uses of the commerce clause). Now you can certainly disagree with the content of the public policy at stake, but you can't deny that this is a classic public policy application of the commerce clause, essentially saying that this is the kind of interstate commerce we "can't" permit.

Not to mention, the indictment accuses actual interstate commerce (taking the dogs to fights in other states, and importing dogs from other states to fight), and is about being in an illegal interstate gambling ring, not animal cruelty charges per se.

They aren't using "interstate commerce" to justify charging someone with using stuff they grow in their backyard here.

I think I just went out of my way to say "I disagree with A but also with B." I should have known someone would immediately show up to say "But it's not A, so what's your problem?"

First off, the "Anything that could conceivably be transported across state lines is 'interstate commerce'" is not new, rather something that was brought in in the 20th century, briefly rebuked by the Supreme Court in US vs. Lopez (Gun Free Schools Act), a case highly criticized by most of the living Constitution types, and then brought back in the marijuana cases.

However, Colby, I don't think that everyone understands your point. I'm not totally certain that I do, but I'll give it a shot.

Your point, AIUI, is that the act of interstate commerce itself is not illegal-- the buying and selling of the dogs, even those breeds, is not illegal per se. It is only made illegal upon the commission (or intention to commit) various other acts which by themselves do not fall under criminal jurisdiction. The question then, in other words, is whether the federal government can regulate interstate commerce that is an attempt to evade state law, or whether states are responsible for their own "border control" in such cases.

Certainly state-run border control is possible. California does it with their own creepy-looking border stations that ask people traveling on land from other US states if they have any fruits or vegetables. On a visceral level, it disturbs me, though that's not a winning argument.

I am certainly against laws that prevent people from freely being able to travel to and enjoy actions legal in one state because they are banned in another. It's injurious to proper federalism. There is, I think, somewhat of a case made that the federal government can assist a state in upholding its laws, particularly when federal intervention is necessary for the laws to be enforced. (And perhaps particularly when the action in question is illegal in all 50 states.)

However, on the the whole I believe that such assistance could be limited far more than now (perhaps to cooperation and such), and that states could take more responsibility for enforcing their own laws. Federalism would be the better for it, and it would place the burdens for a law in IMO a better place.

OTOH, bets actually being placed across state lines quite obviously violate existing federal statutes and are clearly about interstate commerce. In my mind there's little around that, and I'm a little surprised if you argue that that is actually unConstitutional, though I understand opposing the prosecution.

OTOH, bets actually being placed across state lines quite obviously violate existing federal statutes and are clearly about interstate commerce. In my mind there's little around that, and I'm a little surprised if you argue that that is actually unConstitutional, though I understand opposing the prosecution.

I can go with that, but it's my understanding that dogfighting is not the sort of thing where you read a racing form, pick up the phone, and say "Give me $5,000 on Black Beauty in the 2 p.m. fight at Michael Vick's house." I'm envisioning bets being placed and collected at the scene of the event. If this dogfighting "ring" is a genuine single business enterprise with franchises in more than one state, I'm pretty comfortable with it being called "interstate commerce." But you can call anything that happens twice a "ring." The prosecution also has more clearly objectionable features, like the classic conspiracy charge sans underlying offence and the proposed pre-emptive seizure of property before a conviction is secured.

The prosecution also has more clearly objectionable features, like the classic conspiracy charge sans underlying offence and the proposed pre-emptive seizure of property before a conviction is secured.

Agreed, and I need to check all the details before commenting too much. The Constitutional issue is interesting-- SCOTUS attempts to cover itself by saying that federal intervention is only permissible where it's absolutely necessary to prevent total undermining of a particular state's ban. (And agrees that when all 50 states have a ban, Constitutional issues are less worrisome in the specific case.)

I grant a certain amount of reasoning in that line. However, like you, I strongly suspect that forces tend to find that sort of necessity in nearly all cases. The "exceptions" are the rule. For that reason I find it safer to have federal cooperation with local officials, but not federal charges.

Colby,

There's also a few indications that Vick was at least soliciting players around the league (while in different states) to participate. At least, several NFL players have said that he approached them and tried to sell them on the idea. In the particular case, it seems like it could fall into the appropriate area, though I agree with you on the general issue. A truly local dogfighting ring should not be a federal case.