Constitutional base for a law against dog fighting?

Question

I'm taking this government class, and one of my homework questions is asking what the Constitutional base for a law against dog fighting is. Well, I have no idea, and I've searched around quite a bit. Any help??

Answer 1

Under the Constitution, States have a general police power. Laws against dog-fighting are passed under that power.

Answer 2

Article 1 section 8, Powers of the Congress to make all laws? Other than that, I would think it is a State issue and laws against it would be passed on the state level. The interstate commerce act was violated in the Vick case which is why the Feds got involved.

Answer 3

As a rule all levels of government who have the constitutional authority to enact laws (from municipalities to the Federal government) ,simply enact laws to address a given problem/situation .

While these various levels of government usually would not enact any law that is blatantly un-constitutional (as they all vet these laws through lawyers before passage) ,often governments will knowingly enact laws that they know are questionable constitutionally.

We see this often at the Federal level especially currently where the Supreme Court in their last session has declared 4 Bush pushed laws un-constitutional and most experts believe that Bush and the Congress knew a priori ,that they were probably un-constitutional .

A law can only be declared un-constitutional if it reaches the Supreme Court .

By trying to "push the constitutional envelope" ,those who have enacted the law have really nothing to loose for on occaision such questionable laws are not declared un-constitutional.

There are probably thousands of laws on the books at various levels of government (especially municipal by-laws) that are in fact un-constitutional but never get to the Supreme Court for various reasons primarily these two reasons:

1.It is extremely costly to challenge a law up to the Supreme Court ,This automatically,right or wrong, sees many laws without a backer rich enough or committed enough to challenge the law.

As an aside,this is why the ACLU exists for they have the resourses (money and personel) to challenge at least a limited number of highly questionable laws they serves an excellent democratic purpose of culling certain questionable laws for backing to the Supreme Court.

http://www.petcaretips.net/dog-fighting-law.html


Just because a law exists does not de facto mean it IS or IS NOT Constitutional.


2. The Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT TO HEAR all cases brought to them.This means that many laws that are challenged may get to the Supreme Court BUT are rejected and their constitutionality remains in limbo although most importantly ,such laws are still totally enforceable.

Answer 4

The constitution gives the legislature the right to pass laws.... thats the constitutional basis...you also wont find any traffic laws, laws about radio communication, etc in the constitution

Answer 5

The commerce clause is pretty much used as a catch-all justification for any law that congress dreams up.

Answer 6

There is none.

The only way the Feds become involved is because state lines maybe crossed...