Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Azle, Texas
    Last Seen
    01-29-17 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6

    A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    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).

  2. #2
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,735

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    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.

  3. #3
    Educator newpublius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Riverdale, NJ
    Last Seen
    01-15-17 @ 12:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    714

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Sounds kind've like the modern day Frankenstein version of Dred Scott.

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Azle, Texas
    Last Seen
    01-29-17 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    Sounds kind've like the modern day Frankenstein version of Dred Scott.
    Basically what I was going for in this scenario.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,877

    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).
    This case would never appear in any court.

    The feds would take over the project way before the five year education period was over and that gryphon wouldn't see the light of day.

    btw, just so everyone has a clear picture in their mind what you are talking about...this is a gryphon:


    6130165_orig.jpg
    TANSTAAFL

    “Certain types of loudmouthism should be a capital offense among decent people.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

  6. #6
    Anti-democracy advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    China - teaching grasshopper
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,489

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    Sounds kind've like the modern day Frankenstein version of Dred Scott.
    hey!.... welcome back by the way


    I am the President

  7. #7
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    17,574

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    I would have to know more about the process by which it was created, but would tend to go with B.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,894

    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).
    Religiously, from the view of Christianity, there is only one possible conclusion assuming the the Gryphon is absolutely identical to all other humans from the atomic level on up. The Gryphon is a human.

    Any Christian would be forced to admit that a child born of a virgin is not a naturally born person, but also that the Christ child, never conceived but born nonetheless, was born man. this, of course, is an article of faith. The lack of a natural conception is obviously, then, not a barrier to being called a man.

    That said, the Gryphon could not be a citizen until it was naturalized since it was never born and could not, therefore, be born in the United States.

    Regarding the court's ruling, what party did the Gryphon register to join?
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    29,059

    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).
    If its capable of speech, independent and rational thinking then it would have Rights. A "person" in the Constitution is considered just that for legal purposes so they'd have to vote as such. Note, the Constitution mentions "person" and "people", it doesn't mention "human". It's the idea behind what humanity is that gets the Constitutional protection, not whether something is human or not. At least that is how I interpret it. Whether others would I have no idea.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #10
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,563
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

    Every scenario is hypothetical!


Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •