I am going to make a lot of my readers angry now (hi Mom!!!). I do not think that Michael Vick should be prosecuted for dog fighting...
Let me be clear. Dog fighting is a brutal, abhorrent act. I do not support dog fighting in any way, shape, or form.
That said, my objection to Vick's prosecution on federal charges comes from property rights. Vick owned those dogs. They were his property, his chattel. According to the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Due Process Clause does not mean that the government can simply make laws that restrict property. They have been given very strict guidelines and procedures to follow. That means that the Federal Government had no right to prosecute Vick, as his actions did not infringe on anybody else's rights.
Let's put this another way... I buy a cow. I feed it, house, it and care for it. When the time is right, I kill it. It makes little difference that the animal will be used for food. Again, no one's rights were infringed upon by my killing of the cow. Why is there a difference with dogs? Chattel is chattel. If I kill a dog and eat it, is that cause for my being federally prosecuted?
If you do not support Dog Fighting, don't go to the fights. Work with your city to ban the practice. There is no Constitutional reason for any type of Dog Fighting legislation at the Federal Level.
Vick is guilty of bad taste, despicable behavior, and being a moron. Nothing else.