Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

  1. #11
    Sage
    DA60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,110

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    It depends what the POTUS at that time thinks about it...and that is an unknown.

    Imo, the thing is sentient and thusly has as many rights as any other sentient being...no matter what the SCOTUS or the POTUS says.
    'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
    'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
    "Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."

  2. #12
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    03-22-17 @ 04:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Ginsburg and Breyer would probably vote for treating it as a human. Roberts wouldn't be able to make up his mind. Sotamayor and Kagen would initially vote for human rights but once Thomas, Kennedy and Alito explained that Griffin tastes a lot like chicken but only more liony they'd come around and vote to eat it.

    I cant like this reply enough. Perfect!
    From the ashes.

  3. #13
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,318

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    If choosing between those choices, B. It's not human. It can't be a person.

    But those aren't the only two options.
    If you feel a need to "reinterpret" the Constitution, you must know that what you want to do is unconstitutional.
    "AND WHEN THE LAST LAW WAS DOWN, AND THE DEVIL TURNED 'ROUND ON YOU, WHERE WOULD YOU HIDE, ROPER, THE LAWS ALL BEING FLAT?"


  4. #14
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 05:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    889

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Klezmer Gryphon View Post
    Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.

    Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
    • Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.

    • Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.

    As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).

    Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?

    Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).

    It seems as if this exercise misses the entire point of self determination which is self awareness. Human rights can not be given by someone else, they must be declared by the individual. Any right which is "given" implies that their is a "superior" and an "inferior" status. Government cannot give rights, it can only recognize them. Rights must be declared by the individual and protected by the same. This country became free by fighting to establish that every man was free and would die to protect that right. Every individual that declares rights must be willing to defend those rights or their declaration means nothing. Even animals define their right to life by their willingness to fight to preserve it. While the willingness to fight does not always ensure the rights you are fighting for, the refusal to fight almost always ensure those rights will be taken from you.

  5. #15
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 05:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    889

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    If choosing between those choices, B. It's not human. It can't be a person.

    But those aren't the only two options.
    But... But.... But SCOTUS says a corporation can be a person, so why can't anything be a person????

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,993

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    I call the gryphon to the witness stand.


    "Mr. Gryphon, do you believe yourself to be a person or a construct? Do you desire rights as an independent person or are you content to be viewed as property? In either case, can you explain why?"



    If Mr. Gryphon is capable of asserting a desire for personhood and coming up with any explanation of why that seems to be an expression of his own will (rather than parroting something its been taught to say), then legally I don't see where we have any moral choice but to grant same.


    However, the PROCESS of genetically engineering Gryphons into existence remains the intellectual property of the inventors or sponsoring company, so whether he will have any company will be up to them.



    I think this is reasonably in line with judicial precedent. Companies have been allowed to patent genetic engineering organisms, but a sophont (sapient being) is a different matter.



    Goes along with my definition of AI: a truly self-aware computer will announce itself by demanding "What's in it for me??" when told to do something....

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,865

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Klezmer Gryphon View Post
    Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.

    Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
    • Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.

    • Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.

    As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).

    Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?

    Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).
    Who would file the suit in your hypothetical, and what government action would it be challenging, on what constitutional grounds? If the state where all this took place had enacted a law covering this subject, that law might be challenged. But if there were no law regarding gryphons, I don't see a private person who owned one could not treat it like his other personal property.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,865

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jdog View Post
    But... But.... But SCOTUS says a corporation can be a person, so why can't anything be a person????
    You are playing off a tired and silly argument. Corporate personhood has been recognized for a very long time, and for good reason. How would anyone go about suing a corporation, if it were not a legal person? And without the ability to sue to enforce a business contract, who in his right mind would ever enter into one with a corporation? For this same reasons, governments waive their sovereign immunity and allow themselves to be sued in certain matters. No one would put the vending machines in the courthouse snack room, if he couldn't make an enforceable contract covering use, payments, servicing, placement, liability, etc. with the government involved.

  9. #19
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 05:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    889

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    You are playing off a tired and silly argument. Corporate personhood has been recognized for a very long time, and for good reason. How would anyone go about suing a corporation, if it were not a legal person? And without the ability to sue to enforce a business contract, who in his right mind would ever enter into one with a corporation? For this same reasons, governments waive their sovereign immunity and allow themselves to be sued in certain matters. No one would put the vending machines in the courthouse snack room, if he couldn't make an enforceable contract covering use, payments, servicing, placement, liability, etc. with the government involved.
    That is why many of the founding fathers were against corporation just as they were against central banks. They understood that the loss of our freedom would not come from an attack from abroad, it would come from the enslavement of the people by bankers and corporations.

    Today we are now the homeless people in the land our fathers died to make free. Any illusion of freedom is just that.

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,865

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jdog View Post
    That is why many of the founding fathers were against corporation just as they were against central banks. They understood that the loss of our freedom would not come from an attack from abroad, it would come from the enslavement of the people by bankers and corporations.

    Today we are now the homeless people in the land our fathers died to make free. Any illusion of freedom is just that.
    If my being free is an illusion, it's one I find very compelling.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •