butafly v. the Northeast

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Woof. I really don't care to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

However, it would be unbecoming of a judge to refuse to hear a case for such a reason.

I suppose I'll be hearing this.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So, would you care to file a brief, butafly? Or would you prefer to resolve the matter by working on an amendment to the Constitution?

To my knowledge, it is unprofessional for justices to comment on cases that they've yet to rule on, so I can't directly speak to the matter.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So, would you care to file a brief, butafly?

I think my argument is adequately summed up in the OP. As I said, this is very unambiguous.

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

Attention, more or less. Not attention for me (stop laughing, you), but I doubt a case over environmental law or somesuch would have provided enough momentum for the Assembly to restrict the "Right to Privacy"... I needed to show the most extreme consequences.

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

Does "themselves" really count? That leads to criminalising suicide and whatnot.

Something I missed:

This is an absurd interpretation of the right to privacy. I will not condone the raping of animals.

Under Butafly/A Person's interpretation you can also argue that murdering a non citizen is legal. Interpreting it in this way would set a horrible precedent for the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the second instance only says "citizens". Not "Northeast citizens" or even "Atlasian citizens". Everyone is a citizen of some place or another.

Noted. Would sirnick, Matt from VT, or anybody else care to file a brief?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Still here, butafly. My apologies for the delay on the ruling - I have heard from two others that they would like to file briefs but have yet to do so. I'll wait a few more days for those.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nick?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Crap, I forgot and now I'm not Governor. Is it ethical of me to file a brief now?

I don't see why it wouldn't be.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for your arguments.

I am going to be ruling today on the matter of the Bestiality Criminalization Act.

Representative butafly contends that, per Article VI, Section 5 of the Northeast Constitution, the Act is unconstitutional because each citizen is afforded an unabridged right to privacy, so long as any action does not affect another citizen. He contends that animals are not guaranteed the same protection, because they are not citizens.

One important thing to consider is the time this law was passed. According to Rinchan’s post, voting ended on March 26th, 2006 with 8 ayes, 1 nay and 1 abstention. It goes without saying that the current Northeast Constitution was not ratified until long after the passage of this law.

One must then consult the Constitution under which it was passed.

It would seem that the offending clause was part of this Constitution as well.

Governor sirnick posits that bestiality should be prohibited due to the passage of the Animal Protection Act of 2013 by the Atlasian Senate. However, Section II reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This establishes that it is incumbent upon each individual region to pass Sections III-VI. To my knowledge, the Northeast Assembly has not done that. However, the Northeast Assembly did pass a similar measure in 2010, as pointed out by Kitteh.

Article 3, Section A of the Animal Protection Act reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thefreedictionary.com defines torture as “excruciating physical or mental pain;agony.” Similarly, the 1989 Encyclopedic Edition of Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as “intense pain or suffering of body or mind.” It goes without saying that rape can be considered torture due to the traumatic effects it has on one’s mind.

It is likely that this too would violate the Northeast Constitution, by butafly’s logic. So where does this leave us? Should our regional motto now be “The Northeast: Where the men are men, and the sheep are scared”? Or is there a higher governing authority?

One must bear in mind the Federal Constitution. Article IV, Section 3:1 reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Federal Constitution provides for protection of animals, then it would override any existing protections of bestiality. Thus, I am tentatively upholding the Bestiality Criminalization Act but I do recommend that it be repealed, since the penalties are similar as those outlined in the Animal Protection Act. I also recommend that the Northeast ratify the Animal Protection Act of 2013, as it is technically losing 10% of environmental funding.

So ordered,

CJO Dallasfan65