Gamecocks are livestock, property of the owner, the state has passed a law that makes it illegal to "harvest" our livestock. And then you have all of the arguments relating to beef cattle,goats etc etc and that gamecocks have been harvested for over 3,000 years by fighting and around the world today they are still being harvested by the only method they can be. Which is why the HSUS always says gamecocks must be killed.
You can use Wayne Pacelle's own congressional testimony and John P Goodwin's own words that I sent you that absolutely co nfirm that gamecocks are harvested by cockfighting and there's no other reason to own them, therefore the law is in violation of the 5th amendment. If you could not apply the same law to the cattlemen without violating their constitutional rights then the laws are in violation of the 14th amendment as in "we are all entitled to equal protection of the law".
If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and
of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court
must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law.
Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952)
of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court
must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law.
Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952)
The voters may no more violate the United States Constitution by enacting a ballot issue than the general assembly may by enacting legislation, American Constitutional Law Foundation Inc. v Meyer. i20 F 3d 1092 (10th Cir. 07/28/1997) citing Citizens Against Rent Control v City of Berkeley, 434 U.S. 290,295(1981)
Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court in CA:
In the opinion of the court when giving this ruling Judge Walker wrote "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples."
Judge Walker's ruling directly reflects the the indisputable fact that a majority cannot deny, a minority group, of fundamental freedoms based simply on personal opinions of morality. (especially over a chicken which is the personal property of the owner)
"A statute does not trump the Constitution."
People v. Ortiz, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2
Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163
A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional
right. People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr.
139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921],
however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the
constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If
that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state
...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921
Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey
the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308
[S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]
John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
People v. Ortiz, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2
Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163
A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional
right. People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr.
139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921],
however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the
constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If
that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state
...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921
Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey
the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308
[S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]
John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
As with any law that is passed against any activity regardless of what the activity is, there is always someone that is being subjugated and deprived of an activity they want to pursue. Our legislators as the people that propose and pass laws do not get to decide to what extent the person you are stripping freedom from will go to defend their freedom. You only get to decide if the intent is justified by the possible cost.
Law Enforcement Officers must be sent to enforce these laws you pass and they must meet any resistance with a greater amount of force than they encounter. Rural Americans trying to enjoy their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, culture, heritage, fellowship with their family and other cockfighters, earn a living in their agriculture industry and live their lives in freedom and peace are being assaulted by law enforcement officers sent to strip these freedoms from them over the way they harvest their game chickens based on animal rights extremists' opinions.
See more documents at sites.google.com/site/hsusisbad/these-court-cases-may-help-in-the-court
No comments:
Post a Comment