Due process and the standard of violating someones rights before claiming a crime has been committed matter. Civilized people do not go around demanding that someone be "dragged by the neck" and anything goes as long as your target is punished.

Banning video sounds like a straightforward violation of the First Amendment.

You have no right to drag anyone "by the neck".

As long as they are punished.

You might want to read the actual text of the law before you comment. I have exercised self-control and not Pasted the entire text of the new law here, but for your ease of access, here is the first clause. (The rest may be found at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...

48.

Animal crushing
(a)

Offenses
(1)

Crushing

It shall be unlawful for any person to purposely engage in animal crushing in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(2)

Creation of animal crush videos

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly create an animal crush video, if—
(A)

the person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B)

the animal crush video is distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.
(3)

Distribution of animal crush videos

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commer

Colorado already had a law to punish the people involved. The new federal law is still unconstitutional and a very bad law.

The law is aimed at creeps like this:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-c...

Then the jerk has the nerve to say she is "sorry", and does not know why she did it.

She should be dragged by the neck like she did to the horse. Maybe she'll remember why she did it. Loosing her job was the minimum that happened to her.

She has remorse now after being caught.

People have no right to get together in a gang and vote away the natural rights of their neighbors; and their being in the majority does not give them such a right.

Of course it is about animal 'rights'. It is a law controlling human beings on behalf of animals. There is no"responsibility of man to control and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with the animal kingdom from which humans 'evolved'." That is collectivism escalated to include animals.

There is no "responsibility" of man to ensure that animals "benefit" from our actions. It is a baseless assertion attempting to impose the meaningless notion of animal rights, subjugating man to the interests of lower animals. So is the anti-hunting movement.

And why the scare quotes for "evolved"? Our rights depend on our nature as the rational animal, not on evolutionary biology. The lower animals are biologically inferior; they did not evolve to the superior, more advanced level of man. We don't have an obligation to ensure that fish benefit either.

This has nothing to do with animal rights.

It has to do with the responsibility of man to control and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with the animal kingdom from which humans "evolved".

There is always a degrading aspect of treating other species as inferior. Animals are not subjects of fun to shoot them during a rally of like minded hunters who think that taking a life is justified for their pleasure.

This is not a matter of the Constitution, which is a non-philosophical political document describing procedures and limited functions of a national government. In its limited scope and function it does not imply, either legally or morally, that state and local governments are free to do whatever they want to violate our moral rights in accordance with a collectivist "will of the people".

Conservatives promoting the contradictory notion of "states rights" are advocates of statism and collectivism even while opposing much of it for the Federal government. They are often national statists, too, but are certainly state statists. Their arbitrary fixation on restricting only the Federal government reveals a complete lack of philosophical principles. The Constitution is not the basis of all political discussion, immune from criticism and implying that anything goes at the state level..

This is all much broader and more fundamental than a-philosophical anti tax rebels and activists futilely obsessing with pseudo legal arguments over a legally impossible "sovereignty".

The US constitution only has specific restrictions on where federal power has control over state, local, and the people (and that is what I am commenting on.) That leaves the people to restrict their state and local governments in their constitutions. I agree that the people should not have their rights restricted unless they give consent. If the people do give consent, under the form of government we currently practice, they can have their liberties restricted. Some researchers maintain that the people can still choose sovereignty instead of citizenship by not accepting social security and other federal entanglements. Unfortunately, the practical side of living today makes such a choice extremely difficult, nearing impossibility. (No social security number means most employers will not offer employment, no bank will allow a bank account, getting credit would be nearly impossible (and a credit card impossible which greatly limits action as a consumer. The upside is no income reporting or tax assuming the sovereign doesn't consent in any other way.)

Right on!

Just when did that happen?

Ayn Rand said, "the phrase 'states' rights' is a contradiction in terms. There can be no such thing as the 'right' of some men to violate the rights of others."

And then why should your rights and liberty be destroyed by acts of the local or state government?---(to freedomforall).

Yes, there may be a justification for a state or local law prohibiting putting someone's possible pet to death because it was brought to the pound. (Because of what it does to the owner). But that is different from saying that the animal itself has civil rights.

As much as I am outraged by animal cruelty, I can't,
logically, go along with the idea that animals have rights, like human beings. I do not think that the government should be involved in committing animal cruelty, however. People who don't believe in such cruelty shouldn't be made to finance it. But as for citizens' doing it on their own, I think that can be handled by boycotts and other forms of ostracism.

"encourage the feds to get rid of the Dept. of Education, the Patriot Act, etc"

Thank you. The Patriot Act, especially, is a despicable law, all wrapped up in the red, white and blue. It should be abolished (should never have happened). And we should be bringing Edward Snowden home and honor - not punish - his brave acts. (edited for incorrect tense).

Predictable, myopic one trick pony. Enjoy listening to your own voice.

The "context" of discussion of political fundamentals is the rights of the individual. Ashinoff's demand to reject that, especially on an Ayn Rand forum, demonstrates his own authoritarianism. Rights are not to be flippantly dismissed as a "soapbox". Rights do not disappear depending on the "jurisdiction". His 'real politic' insistence that in "reality" our rights are being violated does not justify his advocating it, and neither do his false appeals to the Constitution.

Ashinoff is an authoritarian conservative traditionalist embracing the collectivist notion of the "will of the people" (and elsewhere religious mysticism) as the source of political justification. He can believe whatever he wants but has no right to demand to "frame" discussion here in such terms fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand and the purpose of this forum, which he constantly abuses in his warrior campaign exploiting this forum.

His angry sneering outbursts of deliberate, openly acknowledged snide personal attacks and false accusations of dishonesty attempting to intimidate and smear are not rational response.

Neither is his 'ostrich strategy' of dramatically pronouncing that as a matter of policy he "ignores" refutation and rejections of his abuse, which are not "stabs". Others can read the responses to him whether he likes it or not. His refusal to engage in discussion of individualism and its moral basis in favor of militant "proud" promotion of its opposite, while personally attacking those who reject his dogmas, means that Ashinoff does not belong here, and do not stop others from seeing what he is.

Ya' sure are good at framing things in the context you want to discuss. Look at you feeling all empowered as you take stabs. Yes, that is me actually and deliberately being snide.

As stated before, not that it will matter (based on past encounters), this is about the Constitutional jurisdiction to make law. Pay attention: My initial and subsequent posts weren't about rights in any way. Look at my first post in this thread for where I stand on the matter. Never mind I'll do that for you "Agreed. This is excessive and an unjust use of authority. Yes animal abuse should be criminal. A federal crime? Hell no."
I'll take it one thought process further for you "in this reality, where these EO's and laws are passed, its better to have them locally where they better represent the people of each state, where the people of each state can tailor them to how they see the situation, and where politicians can be held accountable and the laws can be repealed more readily. Say what you will, the REALITY is these things will and are actually happening in the REALITY we live in.

You're damn right I'm Conservative. I've been saying it since day 1 on this site. I don't apologize for it.

Twist and contort what I said to fit your narrative all you like (true to your history, since you will anyway), 2019 is almost over and, thanks to this reminder, I'll start 2020 ignoring just ONE person again. You have the sole distinction of the dozens of people who've debated and discussed things with here to be the only one I ignore.

Where are the Hallings? LetsShrug? LibertyPirate? MichaelMarotta? Man, at least those guys were intellectually honest (and less impressed by their own words) when the differences between Objectivisim and Conservatism became evident in a subject.

This is what Ashinoff wrote that he denies is snide: "Breaking my tradition of ignoring you once again. It must be the approaching holiday. Please revisit what a republic is. Put aside your myopia for 10 minutes and understand that you live in an actual reality... We do not live in text books no matter how much we canonize an ideology."

That is the kind of pompous, belligerent personal attacks typical from him when his conservative false premises are rejected. His repetitious conservative slogans claiming to appeal to the Constitution are laced with this abuse as he tries to concoct an emotional force to his non-arguments.

He has still not addressed what I wrote, which he smears as a "soapbox" for rights. His desire for government to be more local does not give him the right to use any level of government to violate the rights of others.

Ashinoff's appeal to the "will of the people", without regard to limiting all government to protecting individual rights, is communitarian tribalism. He sounds like something out of a 1960s SDS meeting clamoring for everyone to vote on what anyone can do, ignoring any rights of the individual to be free of the collective rule.

Ashinoff is at root a collectivist following conservative "tradition", with dismissive contempt on principle for the rights of the individual. He admits that animals don't have rights and still wants animal rights laws violating human rights, imposed in the name of the "will of the people".

His claim that people "empower States with certain rights which in turn empower a federal entity with certain rights all to carry out specific duties" is false. No government acts by "right". Only individuals have rights. No level of government is morally free to do whatever it wants in accordance with some pressure group's demands, and no "will of the people" can morally "empower" it to do so.

Ashinoff is a conservative statist dismissing rights on principle as a "soapbox for a lesson on 'rights' when we talking about Constitutional jurisdiction to make law". No, that is not what "we" are talking about and no appeal to the rights of the individual is a "soapbox", despite his conservative contempt for the principle of individualism. No government "jurisdiction" may properly violate anyone's rights and the Constitution does not justify Ashinoff promoting that for either his state or local collective.

He illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the worst of the conservatives appealing to the "tradition" of the "Constitution" for whatever they want to impose, obliterating principles of moral and political philosophy.

The Constitution was a political, not philosophical, document defining the organization and limited functions of a national government. The Constitution is not the logical basis of all political discussion. It is a derivative document of limited scope, not a primary and not a fundamental of political philosophy.

The Constitution was not without its flaws but attempted to implement a commonly accepted Enlightenment concept of the rights of man with a national government of limited powers. It did not say, and does not justify, the claim that states or local governments may do whatever they want, either politically or in morality. There is no such thing as a "right" of a state or any collective or government.

Our rights are now violated all the time. Ashinoff demands that appeal to what is morally proper be ignored. "This is not the reality we live in", he intones, and then proceeds to double down on the immorality while cynically rejecting objections as an irrelevant "soapbox" for "rights".

Self government at any level does not necessarily respect or demand that we respect the rights of the individual. It depends on what the people in the society believe. A small town clique running local government can be more oppressive than Washington DC.

It never goes unpunished in my state nor the states around me, with or without a written law.