Doe v. Mordac

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

On behalf of a nameless female client residing in the state of South Carolina who wishes to obtain a second trimester abortion, without having to go out of this region, I am filing a lawsuit ibefore the Southeast Magistrate seeking to find Initiative #17, The Abortion Amendment is unconstitional as it violates the rights guarenteed her under the Bill of Rights of the Southeastern Constitution to determine the philosophical question of when does a human life begin.

[Platypus]

ernests at it again. I hate it when you try to further a political agenda through the courts ernest, even if I sorta-almost agree with the cause.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Personally. I'm rather neutral on the issue of abortion, but I think that the Southeast adopted our just-minted Bill of Rights a bit too hastily and without considering carefully what it meant.  Since abortion is an issue that does attract a bunch of interest, I figured it would be a good place to continue my efforts to see the flaws of outr Bill of Rights corrected.

[Platypus]

why not attack the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment?

[Ebowed]

If the Bill of Rights contained the right to an abortion, perhaps it would actually say that there is a right to an abortion.  I don't see anything that defines when human life begins, either.

why not attack the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment?

Because Ernest is pro-death penalty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

why not attack the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment?

It certainly is not unusual as it is regularly if too infrequently applied.  I suppose that if people feel the current methods of execution are inhumane, we could always adopt one or more of the methods used to humanely euthanise animals instead.

[Platypus]

it is unusual in that it is used only in a small percentage of cases. And taking the life is cruel, more then the method.

[Ebowed]

On behalf of a nameless female client residing in the state of South Carolina who wishes to obtain a second trimester abortion,

Why not a third trimester abortion?  Do you fear the courts wouldn't be so sympathetic and wouldn't find something to make up in the Bill of Rights to cover it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

On behalf of a nameless female client residing in the state of South Carolina who wishes to obtain a second trimester abortion,

Why not a third trimester abortion?  Do you fear the courts wouldn't be so sympathetic and wouldn't find something to make up in the Bill of Rights to cover it?

No, because by the time the courts get around to it, a third trimester mother might well have already given birth, especially if our courts were as slow as the ones in real life.  Atlasia has been subject to difficulties in case scheduling in the past, so it was only prident to select a plaintiff for the test case that would be least troubled by potential delay.

[Ebowed]

This is the Southeastern court, not the Supreme Court.  A woman in her 26th week of pregnancy would not have to wait until birth to get a ruling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is the Southeastern court, not the Supreme Court.  A woman in her 26th week of pregnancy would not have to wait until birth to get a ruling.

The difficulties in scheduling Bono v. Atlasia 2.0 were due in part (but not entirely) to schedule conficts involving the plaintiff which will likely recur now that he is the defendant.  Furthermore, there is always the risk of premature birth in the third trimester.  In the early second trimester the risk would instead be a natural abortion instead of the induced one my client seeks.

[Bono]

Well, I wish to reserve my defense.
Anyways, I just want to mention that if the plaintiff had voiced his concerns during the public discussion period I gave for this bill of rights, I wouldn't have ignored him.

[Jake]

I urge the Magistrate to refuse to hear so senseless a case.

[DanielX]

I will give this Doe a $100,000 check if she...
A: drops the case and
B: agrees to carry the baby to term.

[Jake]

Also, the FEC Commission is currently investigating this "Doe" character for signs of elitism. A hit may be in order.

[CheeseWhiz]

I will give this Doe a $100,000 check if she...
A: drops the case and
B: agrees to carry the baby to term.

Hey, I'll pay for half of that check!

[Ebowed]

I'd be willing to give this Doe $200,000 (I'm rich thanks to Ebowed News Network's ratings ) to do the same.

Come on, start the bidding war!

[Brandon H]

Let's modify the first part of the Bill of Rights from "Are born with" to "are conceived with". Then there would be no case.

[John Dibble]

*sigh* this has to come up when I'm really busy.

Anywho, the part of the Bill of Rights in question is as follows:

"5. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to hold religious or philosophical beliefs according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for acting upon those religious or philosophical beliefs in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious or philosophical profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he does not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious or philosophical pursuits."

And the initiative in question: http://www.geocities.com/southeastgov/init017.html

Now, according to the plaintiff's argument, the woman has the right to determine the philisophical question of when human life begins. Now, nothing in the initiative in question prohibits her right to hold the belief that life begins when she thinks it does, rather it simply sets a limit on when abortions may be performed, so I am seeing no violation, but that does not necessarily mean one does not exist. I shall give the plaintiff and any concerned parties 48 hours to make their arguments, and then I will consider and make a ruling.

PS - if I pass the 48 hour limit by much, someone please PM me about it, I'm very busy right now so I might forget.

[A18]

If the Bill of Rights contained the right to an abortion, perhaps it would actually say that there is a right to an abortion. I don't see anything that defines when human life begins, either.

why not attack the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment?

Because Ernest is pro-death penalty.

Uh, cruel and unusual punishment had well-established meaning in English common law before it became part of the American legal system.

Want to see real cruel and unusual punishment? Look up drawing and quartering or tarring and feathering.

[Јas]

Uh, cruel and unusual punishment had well-established meaning in English common law before it became part of the American legal system.

Want to see real cruel and unusual punishment? Look up drawing and quartering or tarring and feathering.

Cruel and unusual punishment was banned by the English Bill of Rights in 1689, so had greater standing than common law.
Nonetheless people continued to suffer hanging, drawing and quartering beyond this. The final known occurance being 1820.
Implying that the punishment was not cruel and unusual. (Not that I agree.)

And though, of course, tarring and feathering was an abhorrent practice, a deviation known as 'pitchcapping' used by British forces in Ireland c.1798 was much worse.

[Emsworth]

Cruel and unusual punishment was banned by the English Bill of Rights in 1689, so had greater standing than common law.
Nonetheless people continued to suffer hanging, drawing and quartering beyond this. The final known occurance being 1820.
Implying that the punishment was not cruel and unusual. (Not that I agree.)

Not necessarily. The English Bill of Rights did not forbid cruel and unusual punishments; it only suggested "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It was not an express prohibition.

In any event, the English Bill of Rights could be overruled by statute. Thus, if there was a law that authorized hanging, drawing, and quartering until 1820, then the Bill of Rights does not even come into the picture.

[Јas]

Not necessarily. The English Bill of Rights did not forbid cruel and unusual punishments; it only suggested "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It was not an express prohibition.

I would tend towards a stronger interpretation of ought than you apply, i.e. that of an obligation rather than a suggestion, particularly considering the time it was written.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I understand it, and I'm certainly not a scholar of English constitutional law, the Bill of Rights remains law today and has not been overruled and that hanging, drawing and quartering never had a statutory basis.

[jokerman]

Personally. I'm rather neutral on the issue of abortion, but I think that the Southeast adopted our just-minted Bill of Rights a bit too hastily and without considering carefully what it meant.  Since abortion is an issue that does attract a bunch of interest, I figured it would be a good place to continue my efforts to see the flaws of outr Bill of Rights corrected.

That's why I voted for Dubya's bill of rights instead of Bono's.  Unfortunately the latter one passed and now we have this situation on our hands.

[A18]

The Bill of Rights of 1689 is not a "bill of rights" in the mold of our own. It does not list rights of citizenship, but rather rights of Parliamentarians against the monarch.