U.S.C. § 48 is not aimed at specific instances of animal cruelty, but specifically at the creation and distribution of depictions of such abuse for the purposes of interstate and/or foreign commerce. This is the act that the appellant was unarguably engaging in when apprehended by law enforcement, and the fact that the law is not aimed at those participating directly in acts of animal cruelty does not in and of itself create a constitutional objection.

The statutes specific mention of interstate commerce renders the appellant's claim that the constitutionality of the statute is in question due to a dependence on state definitions also moot. Not only were the acts depicted in the videos the appellant old to law enforcement agencies unquestionably illegal in all fifty states, but the federal government has a duty to regulate interstate commerce specifically because state definitions and regulations differ. Failing to regulate the interstate...
[ View Full Essay]