Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Minnesota
Property Rights and the Vick Case
I had a couple quick questions about the Mike Vick dogfighting case. First of all, let me preface this by saying that I feel his actions were abhorrent and morally wrong. I was wondering if Vick does, however, have the right, under the Constitution to abuse his animals. Doesn't the Constitution give people the right to do what they wish to their private property so long as their actions don't violate the rights of another American citizen? Secondly, are animal cruelty laws violations of the Ninth Amendment? I am under the impression that the Ninth Amendment makes it unconstitutional to make laws, or interpret the Constitution to violate the rights of another. Wouldn't animal cruelty laws infringe upon the Ninth Amendment?
Once again I would like to express that I do feel Vick's actions were reprehensible, I am not condoning them in any way. I am an animal lover and would never wish harm on any of God's creations.
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Property Rights and the Vick Case
Property rights have their limits, and reasonable animal cruelty laws do not violate those limits.
It is not true that people can do whatever they want with their property as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights. To take but a few examples: owners of designated historic buildings cannot alter or demolish them without the government's approval; people who are not pharmacists or doctors cannot re-sell prescription medications they own legally; owners of various exotic animals cannot release them into the wild; landowners cannot grow marijuana on their property, etc.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
