• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A hypothetical scenario concerning the application of constitutional rights

Klezmer Gryphon

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
6
Reaction score
5
Location
Azle, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
I would have to know more about the process by which it was created, but would tend to go with B.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Every scenario is hypothetical!

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

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

Corporations are groups of humans.
 
Back
Top Bottom