I realize that what I’m about to ask is the intellectual equivalent
of taking your date to a monster-truck rally, but where oh where in the
U.S. Constitution is the national government empowered to govern the
treatment of pets?
Yesterday’s New York Times has some details.
Do Senators Stevens and Lautenberg — who introduced the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act
into the U.S. Senate — and the 349 U.S. House members who’ve already
voted for this bill, understand what they did when they pledged to
uphold the Constitution? Did they read the document? Are they
illiterate? Dead-dog stupid? Or are they simply, well, politicians?
(Hat tip to pet-loving Karol.)
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 11 comments }
FDR buried the Constitution. No one has dug it up. Congress continues to shovel more dirt on it.
Apparently, pet evacuation is covered by the commerce clause, as is everything else anyone wants to do.
Aren'y pets covered by the same article that enumerates the powers of the Dept of Housing and Urban Development?
All roads lead to Wickard v. Filburn: The case where the Supreme Court, just after being threatened by FDR, decided that Interstate Commerce includes growing beans and feeding them to your cows.
Under this "aggregation theory", the court allows federal regulation of dung beetles in isolated underground Texas caves through the Endangered Species Act. So why not pets? After all, in aggregate, both have an impact on interstate commerce, right?
Clearly, the framers didn't intend for the commerce clause to prohibit the federal government from interfering in purely local affairs, right?
i think this originated because people with pets were being turned away by shelters in new orleans.
maybe it makes sense because often times in a disaster food supplies run low… this law allows for portable livestock…
If the Constitution did authorise it, what would you say then?
- Josh
I pondered this notion as well when I went to buy a pet turtle for my girlfriend and found that they would not sell me one because owning a turtle under 4 inches is against FEDERAL law.
1240.62 Turtles intrastate and interstate requirements
(a) Definition. As used in this section the term "turtles" includes all animals commonly known as turtles, tortoises, terrapins, and all other animals of the order Testudinata, class Reptilia, except marine species (families Dermochelyidae and Chelonidae).
(b) Sales; general prohibition. Except as otherwise provided in this section, viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches shall not be sold, held for sale, or offered for any other type of commercial or public distribution.
It's in the same clause that mandates massive illegal immigration, open borders ad other economistic claptrap.
It doesn't seem to me particularly unconstitutional for the feds to require an action in return for federal money.
Whether the federal money for disaster preparedness is constitutional is another question, but requiring specific standards – even stupid ones – for receiving aid is unquestionably part of the deal. Saying 'in order to qualify for federal dollars, a disaster plan has to account for pets' is not unconstitutional, if and only if 'the federal government may grant money for disaster preparedness to the states' is constitutional. Trivial isn't synonymous with unconstitutional.
There's a law about everything. The regulations on what can be sold as jam, jelly, preserves and fruit butter really cemented that for me.
"It doesn't seem to me particularly unconstitutional for the feds to require an action in return for federal money."
Normatively-speaking:
If we accept the premise that the Federal government is limited to enumerated powers (quite a leap, I know), then by what rationale can they tax us to pay for the commision of extra-constitutional acts? I have difficulty finding justification for the notion that the taxation power is wholly unrestrained by enumeration principle.
National Treasure II: The Jefferson Code.
Just because *you* haven't decoded it, that doesn't mean that the secret message enabling the federal government to take any action necessary to protect cats isin't there.