The towns, cities, states and courts already do a good job of prosecuting animal cruelty...no need for a "Federal' law.
Show me a state or court that hasn't come down hard on these cases.

They did not get complete control, yet.

People simply ignore them, anywhere they can.

Totalitarian rule starts with enforcement.

I can see why the chief almost died laughing.....
The only one with the info! I couldn't help but
laugh also!!! Unbelievable!!

Also we have a City Ordinance against fighting on the City Hall's property! Two lawyers mixed it up once and I called the police. Of course I told the police not to arrest them, just embarrass them. Seems I was the only person in town who knew about that Ordinance. The Chief of Police almost died laughing.

I wasn't being snide. Animals do not have rights.

You can deny States having authority all you like but a Constitutional republic is exactly that. The people create States (a governing body) to administer certain responsibilities common to all. States (as a composition of the people who made it) create a federal government to handle responsibilities common to all the States, not the individual. People have the rights, they empower States with certain rights which in turn empower a federal entity with certain rights all to carry out specific duties. The trickle down always stops with the individual by way of the State, this is 'supposed' to be our society. This is how our republic was supposed to work.This is why I suggested you revisit what a republic is.

As it related to the subject (animals) the States are better positioned to represent the will of its people than the federal government can be, this is by design. There is no one size fits all solution for a variety of things the federal government chooses to enforce (all entirely outside of their mandate). You know this, and yet you chose to soapbox for a lesson on 'rights' when we talking about Constitutional jurisdiction to make law.

"You have no right to use any level of government to violate others' rights in accordance with what you think is better for us."
This is not the reality we live in as evidenced by the fedgov trying passing this EO. This is why myopia was used, not an insult, just economy of words.

Even you would agree, in this reality, better to have the rules closer to the population and its will then some far away entity that we have little control over and ability to monitor and reprimand regularly?

Please keep your snide insults to yourself. They do not belong here.

There is no such thing as the "rights" of a state. That is a collectivist notion. No government at any level may morally do whatever it pleases, with or without the "will of the people" using government to trample the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights.

For all your irrelevant snide pretentiousness you did not address that. This is about real individuals here in reality; it has nothing to do with "living in textbooks" nor is it about your arbitrary assertion that "having 50 individual laws to handle the matter is much better". You have no right to use any level of government to violate others' rights in accordance with what you think is better for us.

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 where there are governments and, at least in this one, where the federal government is supposed to be subservient to the state government which is supposed to be subservient to the people it's been constructed to represent.

We do not live in text books no matter how much we canonize an ideology. States are more representative of the will of its people than the fedgov can ever be. Having 50 individual laws to handle the matter is much better than a one size forced to fit all.

The only one? He raised taxes through tariffs and income taxes as a double tax, is promoting a government "replacement" for Obamacare, is promoting "infrastructure" boondogles, and much more.

States do not have rights and neither do animals. Both the states and the Federal government should be restricted to protecting the rights of individuals, not "animal rights" or doing whatever they want in the name of "states' rights".

The harm to rights is done to the rights of the owner. Animals do not have rights. The concept does not apply. No level of government should be punishing people for violation of 'animal rights'.

There is no such thing as "states' rights". Only individuals have rights, which are not to be violated by any government, including states.

There is nothing about the subject that makes it nonsensical to debate. Populist conservatives can't defend their positions.

That is the consequence of supporting false premises confused as frozen abstractions for emotional connotations. But the left knows what it means and is already pushing the bans you cited in the name of 'animal rights'.

Passing laws on behalf of alleged 'animal rights' most certainly does destroy our rights. There is no "conclusive proof" that cruelty to animals "leads to", i.e., causes, criminal behavior. They are distinct actions. If and when someone commits an actual crime, then prosecute it.

Rhetoric about "the times we live in are anything but normal, our lives under attack by progressively radical elements" is not an excuse to punish people for doing things exceller doesn't like, and such desires to violate the rights of individuals to impose one's will are not the meaning of "a bit to the direction of normalcy".

Who is the cowardly hit and run troll who is systematically 'downvoting' all of my posts? Take your personal feuding somewhere else.

The question of hypocrisy assumes support for the Constitution. If one opposes limits on government power, with government restricted to protecting the rights of the individual, or if one openly embraces contradictions and pragmatism, then it's not hypocrisy.

Correct principles consistently applied is not "rigid". That smear is what unprincipled pragmatists appeal to.

Again, it is more useful to consistently adhere to proper basic principles. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

There are creeps engaging in all kinds of immoral personal behavior. It is not a reason to appeal to big government controlling people. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not controlling people whose actions you don't approve of.

Child protection laws were based on local aniamal protections laws. Do we have a Federal law to make child abuse a Federal crime? If so, why has Congress been locked up for the sexual abuse done by the Congrassional pedophile ring?

Atta man!

This reminds me of the sci-fi novel by Arthur Clarke "Childhood's End".

In it, a superior alien race controls Earth after humans drove the planet and life in it to the brink of extinction. They bring prosperity, peace and a happy period to humankind.

One of the first things they implemented was banning cruelty to animals. During a bull fight feast, as thousands were ready to immerse themselves into the "joy" of watching the bull die a horrific death, at the first throwing of the lance at the bull by the picador, the arena cries out in unison, feeling the same agonizing pain as the bull, by the order of the controlling aliens.

The ban of bullfight was implemented next day.

I would volunteer for the position!

Yes, that sounds a very effective way of making the creeps think (if they have a brain).

Question is: who is going to enforce it?

You forgot their latest go to... NAZI!!

Chain the abuser to a stall with no food or water for 3-5 days and lets see if this fixes it. Ask me why I am not a G Man!