Outrageous Behavior

I've been so upset about the details of the Michael Vick case that I have been unable to write about it. 

First, the selective prosecution bothers me.  Am I the only one who sees it? Just when my kids find someone who is like them, someone they can use as a role model, someone who has risen above the cries of "sinister," and "gauche" the federal government decides to target him. The fact that he has been singled out is obvious.  Sure, the feds would have been willing to ignore him if he wasn't so famous.  But let a left-handed man rise above the crowd and he immediately has a target on his back. 

The second issue--the serious issue--spotlighted by L'affaire Vick is hubris and the corruption that comes from power and money.  Once a man has a taste of power and money, he wants more.  He acknowledges no limitations.  He is above the law.  In fact, he IS the law.  That's right, I'm talking about Congress.

Michael Vick is being prosecuted under a federal Dog Fighting statute.  My gosh, we have a federal dog fighting statute?  Madison and Hamilton are spinning in their graves.  Oh sure, Congress only attempts to regulate dog fighting that "affects interstate commerce."  Are there no bounds?  Is there no modesty?  Is there no aspect of life that Congress will not attempt to regulate?  We are a country of enumerated powers.  If it doesn't show up in Article one Section 8 then Congress isn't allowed to do it.  But don't tell them that.

Actually, the Supreme Court has been pointing that fact out.  Lopez and especially Morrison make it clear that Congressional attempts to create its own police power by slapping the word "Commerce" on criminal laws won't be tolerated. 

Hubris, corruption, power and greed.  That's what we can see in the Michael Vick story.  And not all of the lessons come from Michael Vick. 

Comments

[Arnie Blarney]

Is today April 1st?

[ron]

Presumably, Mr. Vick has enough money to pay for a good constitutional attorney to make his case.

[Kyle]

This is the first time I have ever disagreed with you!

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

I think Greg is half-joking. He played the left-handed card where many people would have played the race card. That was a joke. The serious part was something I've wondered about myself -- why in the world do the feds have laws having to do with dog-fighting, of all things? What possible interest does the federal government (as opposed to states, counties, or cities) have in dog-fighting? How is that a federal issue?

[Greg Here]

Greg Here: Special Agent Johnny Utah (SAJU) wins the prize. Indeed the left-handed argument is absurd. Unfortunately, reasoning of that nature has become common.

[big papi]

Of COURSE the Feds have laws regarding DOG-FIGHTING and COCK-FIGHTING... argh argh... it is more interesting to hear an old guy (or botox woman) talk about 'COCK-FIGHTING' rather than something say, 'BORDER SECURITY!!' oooohhh aaaahhh....

[Busy Associate]

Greg's Lopez argument would be more persuasive if he actually analyzed the federal dogfighting statutes under the Lopez framework. As even the Rehnquist Court held, Congress does have a police power to regulate anything related to interstate commerce. Obviously the definition of "related to" is the sticky point, as under pre-Lopez jurisprudence that meant "anything." But I think even under Lopez Congress does have the power to and should regulate interstate trafficking in dogfighting. If Vick's operation had been strictly related to Virginia its doubtful the feds would have gone after him, but it seems like this was a much larger enterprise. Anyways, I would like to see Greg use his Con Law knowledge to actually analyze the statutes under the relevant SCOTUS case law rather than just making purely rhetorical arguments mentioning those cases.

[Timothy]

The Capitol Times has a section on other states, and this week they mentioned Wyoming is one of two states that has "soft" animal cruelty laws. So there's a big push in WY to increase penalties, and it's not coming from the feds. So it if ain't broke...

Sometimes these issues just come up because some congressman takes a minor issue and goes to town with it. It's a great combination of Mayhew's line about Congress being all about constituent service, position taking, and credit claiming. And if it involves furry animals, everyone will pay attention. Maricopa County euthanizes 30,000 former pets every year. Where's the outrage?

[Joe Stummer]

And Raich - the medical marijuana case - showed that the Supreme Court didn't have the courage of its convictions.