I am consistent in support of the constitutional limits on the federal government. Yes, it should repeal the laws that created the DOE and the Patriot Act, and thousands of other unconstitutional laws. That is the (perhaps not obvious) point here.
Almost everyone has their own pet peeves and insist that "someone should do something". The federal government has no business at all responding to any of these unconstitutional requests regardless of how attractive they may be politically. There is a process for dealing with these. It's the constitutional amendment process, and it is purposely very difficult. In spite of the difficulty it has been used (and misused) in the past. Circumventing that process has created many unconstitutional laws like the one Trump signed.

What makes a law unconstitutional?

I can name many which are much more abusive than protecting animals and the nation would be well served by abolishing them.

It would be more useful to concentrate on those than single out this one.

Then how do you advise to control it?

Or you think it is enough to condemn it at a personal level but let the creeps abuse animals unpunished and hope they will get reformed on their own?

Wow!! Lucky you to be living in such a caring city!!

We all have different values. I'd advise gathering any anguish you have over this and apply it in a manner that would encourage the feds to get rid of the Dept. of Education, the Patriot Act, etc... No offense but this smacks of woke conservatism. I saw the memes going around on how the hardcore lefties would suddenly be in favor of animal cruelty now that Trump signed this. Cracked me up...because the best humor is founded in some truth. Let's not fall into that trap, please.

Values. One could argue that a federal law banning the abuse of women in Sharia law is meddling. I know the lefties would.

And, once again - no offense. Just not feeling it... Disclaimer: I have not read the law.

You don't decide what laws are ok to be unconstitutional. That principle has resulted in constant pressure group warfare with different groups demanding different contradictory laws, all violating the rights of individuals. Some of them are constitutional and still unjust and improper.

Laws not made in accordance with rights are unjust and improper no matter what the level of government. Let "the people" decide is tribalism. No one has the right to punish "actions that the people define as undesirable", which is statism based on collective subjectivism, and results in one group imposing itself on everyone else no matter what the level of government.

I agree that the people have the rights and they can establish laws in an effort to discourage actions that the people define as undesirable. The constitution restricts what laws can be made by the federal government by defining actions that are the purview of the people and the states, not the federal government. This law should have been left to the people to decide and not by the federal government. The states or the people decide if animals are to be protected in any way; they may decide poorly or they may decide wisely.

Animals don't have rights. The concept does not apply to them. Every immoral act is not subject to laws banning it. Impose animal rights laws and you have granted a false premise with no end of bad consequences. This is more fundamental than what level of government does it.

Agreed. This is excessive and an unjust use of authority. Yes animal abuse should be criminal. A federal crime? Hell no.

Freedom, I know you are passionate about this issue but I if there is only ONE law in this country that is unconstitutional and it concerns animals, I am more than happy to take that stigma and be punished for it.

This law is unconstitutional unless implemented at a lower level. In spite of that, no one will take it to the Supreme Court because PETA would denounce them as animal haters, when in reality they would be defenders of individual liberty.
Times are never "normal" (although I concede that current events are often more insane than at any time in my memory.)
We have been in a "state of emergency" as far as the federal government is concerned since 1933. In this 1973 report , the U.S. Senate admits that the Emergency Powers given to the President (Franklin D. Roosevelt) under the pretense of the National Emergency of 1933 have remained in force and that the normal function of the Federal government has been suspended.
https://archive.org/details/senate-re...
No, government school history courses never touch this issue and these laws rarely have sunset provisions.

Normalcy will more likely come with repeal of unconstitutional laws and a return of the common honorable men/women to serve in con-gress..

My city has laws against cruelty to all animals. Horses, cows, cats, dogs, even pigs, and most certainly fowl.

I see your point and under normal circumstances I'd concur.

However, the times we live in are anything but normal, our lives under attack by progressively radical elements, implementing their own "laws" to gradually prevent even free thinking, let alone action.

The government is a major abuser and this abuse received several blood transfusions during Obama's tenure.

If at least one law pushes the handle a bit to the direction of normalcy, I welcome that.

"Instead you (and almost everyone else) let the federal government gradually take over our lives and destroy our liberty. "

Stop there. The Trump government is not destroying our liberty, I am sure you are aware of that and used this sentence only for rhetorical effects. We know what he has been trying to do since he walked into the WH. It would be a bad mistake to generalize from this example.

There is another side to this. I am sure you are cognizant of the link between cruelty to animals leading to a criminal offense. It has been conclusively proven by facts. So the idiot in Alaska who, with his son walked into the lair of a mother bear hibernating with her cubs and shooting them to death deserved more than the few years in prison he was sentenced to. Great example dad was teaching junior to. And if you have seen the smirking photo of the two slime after being apprehended, you may see this differently.

I knew you would support it, and I understand your point of view. (As a limited local law, I agree with it.)
However, it is not the purview of the federal government and this is a perfect example of why there are so many laws interfering with our liberty.
Everyone has their pet law and almost no one wants to get out and work to get them passed locally where they should be implemented.
"states will never take it up"
States don't take it up because people do not expend the effort needed to get it done at the constitutionally acceptable level.
Instead you (and almost everyone else) let the federal government gradually take over our lives and destroy our liberty.

Fully support it.

True, the government should not be meddling but if it doesn't, animals continue to be abused b/c states will never take it up.

If you spend time and dig deeper of what jerks are doing to animals, you'd agree that this has been long overdues.

The article does not mention starving which is practiced nationwide, and should be included.