“House Votes to Outlaw Horse Slaughter,” by Libby Quaid, Associated Press, 7 September 2006, http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/entrelaw/feeds/ap/2006/09/07/ap3001590.html (from Democratic Underground).
“The United States is the world’s oldest and most successful multinational economic and political union in the world” – “50 members strong.” The founding fathers gave us the wonderful system of federalism, which allows Massachusetts to experiment with Left-wing governance, South Dakota to experiment with Right-wing governance, and everyone else to judge the success or failure for themselves. Federalism rejects the failed notion of Modernity — the idea that there is One Right Way For Everyone Best Decided By Experts — and instead returns decision making to distributed and (informally as possible) networked centers of control.
But if you’re a House Republican, you don’t care about what those old fogeys thought, do you?
The House brushed aside objections from horse doctors and the White House and voted Thursday to outlaw slaughtering horses for people to eat.
“It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today,” said Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban.
Sweeney argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens because horses, such as Mr. Ed, Secretariat and Silver, are American icons.
In case that didn’t make you want to kill yourself, the House Republicans tried even more:
Added Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.: “The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to the core values and morals of its citizens.”
The administration had the backing of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the biggest horse doctors’ group. The American Quarter Horse Association also supports the practice.
It is hard to conceive of any action that more clearly ignores the 10th Amendment to the Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Did the Congress, aware that horse-butchery was not an issue which Jefferson, Madison, & Co. were unprepared to trust the wisdom of distant federal officials, stay out of the matter, allowing the People in the several States to act?
Did the Congress, aware that horse-butchery was not an issue which Jefferson, Madison, & Co. were unprepared to trust the wisdom of distant federal officials, stay out of the matter, allowing the People to directly act, supporting horse-butchery or not as was their conscious?
For that matter, did Congress realize that a literalist interpretation of Mr. Ed may lead to spurious laws?
Nope. Instead a worthless, nanny-state law of the worst sort.