If they participated in the activity after it became illegal in any way I don't think they should be compensated. My opinion is that the government should have "bought out" the people to give an incentive to abandon their previously legal enterprise. As for my earlier comment, I didn't quote the whole pledge just the part that was added after the civil war about being indivisable. For the record I have no problem with Under God in it and anybody who has studied US history and the founding fathers shouldn't eaither. As for your earlier post about the chicken ranch. The way it has been descibed to me and please correct me if I am wrong, prostitution is not prohibited by federal law. Therefore, since it is pretty hard to say that the chicken ranch has an effect on interstate commerce (note: an argument can be made that it does) the fed can't touch it. Now, the corrallary is the case about hotels not allowing black people to stay there in the late 60's. Because there was a federal mandate against it, the argument was made it was interstate commerce and the feds could get involved. On the whole, I do believe in federalism but agree with you and Expatriate on an earlier post; the commerce clause can and has been abused so that the feds can stick their nose into things. On the flip side, they needed to stretch its applicability in the aforementioned case to promote civil rights, which I hope no one on this board is against.
97 replies [Last post]
Sat, 2004-03-06 20:31#91
Sat, 2004-03-06 21:05#92
Very interesting but cockfighting was not against federal law just as prostitution isn't, but through Mr Allreds bill the Feds did touch it by denying crossing state lines to participate in something that was legal in another state. Much the same as the prostitution is legal in Nevada.
Also Miss Janet Haliburton said that the mere ownership of gamefowl in Oklahoma would not be against the law. But a animal control officer in Oklahoma City chasing a stray dog, came onto this persons property,with out a search warrent , discovered game chickens and the man, his wife, and uncle was promptly arrested and the gamefowl confiscated. This was argued in the courts as what would happen when the referendum passed, and that is why there are injunctions in 30 something counties in Oklahoma. Unfortunately Oklahoma City was not one of the counties that the injunctions was granted in. But the arrests did serve one purpose, it exposed Miss Haliburton,the Daily Oklahoman, and the Tulsa World for the charlatans that they are. Now these people are being devestated by court costs. The HSUS went so far as to trying to have the gamefowl publications shut down and the editors sued, they tried to do that through their cronies in the government. But that was such a obvious threat to the constitution that it failed.
There are no more interegrated place as a cockfight so no we have no problems there. As a matter of fact that is also being argued that the cockfighting singles out minorties like hispanics and cajuns and deprives them of their culture. You see it doesn't matter if you are black,brown, white,yellow, male or female at the rooster meets, cause we all have one thing in common, its our love for the birds.
[ This Message was edited by: bucknaked40 on 2004-03-06 20:13 ]
Sat, 2004-03-06 22:42#93
There was no cockfighting going on its all alleged. There was no interstate commerce going on unless the undercover cops sold the two roosters they bought for $600.00 to the police department in a different state.
This is an excellent point. The fowl should not be destroyed (they are not drugs, which the mere possession is illegal) and the state needs to prove that all fowl were in fact intended for interstate trade or game fighting before seizing the fowl. As it is, if the accused are acquitted of all allegations, the state is in quite a predicament having wrongly destroyed property. Indeed, I'm having some doubts that the birds should be destoryed at all. It is the cockfighting act (or inter state trade of game cocks) that is banned, not the possession of the birds themselves.
I believe in the bible where it says that men have dominion over all animals.
Perhaps you can argue that a cockfighting ban is unconstitutional because it restricts your freedom of religion. In other words, your religion says you can use animals as you see fit. It is my understanding that freedom of religion challenges have only been rejected when the religious belief/practice breechs the rights of a person or would put an unacceptable burden on society (neither of which apply to cockfighting). If a court were to reject the challenge, it would have to do so on the grounds that animals have rights.
You calling me a animal rights person is akin to me calling you gay for supporting gay marriages.
Actually its not, because I never gave a position on gay marriage, other than it shouldn't be a constitutional amendment.
Any way, my point about the dogs fights was that you would abstain from them because dogs (in your words) "are like us". Your abstaining from dog fights suggests you find something objectionable about them. In other words, some actions done to dogs by people are unacceptable at least for your tastes. This is the foundation of animal rights, that animals should not be subject to all things that man can do to them simply because man can.
Take these two statements:
1.) "Man can do whatever, whenever to any animal without consequence from any person."
2.) "Non-human and humans are equal in rights".
These two statements bound the limits of the animal rights movement. At one end there are no rights at all, at the other (ludicrous) end chickens are voting for a president.
Buck, you say you adhere to statement #1, but your talk about dog fights and your pets, suggest you believe otherwise, but you are unwilling to formalize it in law.
[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2004-03-06 21:48 ]
Sat, 2004-03-06 23:33#94
OK -- as long as we're discussing federalism and the full faith & credit clause, here's one for you.
The full faith and credit clause states "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Thus, my marriage license is recognized and honored in every state in the Union. So are my driver's license, adoption decree, birth certificate, and vehicle registration. So why is it legal for other states to refuse to recognize my concealed carry permit issued by judicial authority in my state?
Sun, 2004-03-07 08:06#95
Man you stumped me there expatriate. There are probably more people killed by out of state registered cars than there are by out of state licensed guns.
Have to think on that for a while but will think of some kind of BUCKALOGICS for you, just keep your powder dry will get back to you later. Bye Buck
Also Bitsmasher by you saying that there should be no constitutional amendment to the gay marriages, You have taken a stance one way or the other. Bye to you also and thanks Buck
Sun, 2004-03-07 09:59#96
Did any of you people happen to see what the sheriff said about the birds not being fit for human consumpton in the links out of the Florida paper. Said because of what they were fed to make them fight. Why didn't this reporter ask the sheriff if the birds were given drug tests? Is this a example of YELLOW journalism? Thats the only way he can say with any certianty that they were. Its just another reason to justify killing them to the public. This is another prime example of the lies these people tell and are never called on. There is no way that you can eat a game rooster even if you pressure cook him for three days, that is just how tuff they are. I do eat some of my pullets when they are about quail size, thats the only way you can eat them. I also eat the Rooster Bullets that the hens lay.
Thanks again Buck
Sun, 2004-09-19 20:55#97
Hi guys and gals
Hey everybody hows things going and who is gonna be the next president. I need to get some words of wisdom on here so i can make a intelligent decision as to who i need to vote for. I know that you all can give me some insight as to whos best for the job and why. Anxiously awaiting your replies. Thanks Buck