Doe v. Mordac

[Јas]

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.

Having read it, I can't see how one could interpret it that way.
The text itself does not seem to support that view.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

a deviation known as 'pitchcapping' used by British forces in Ireland c.1798 was much worse.

IIRC that was when they covered someone's head in pitch, stuck feather on it and set fire to it?

[Platypus]

oh lovely, poms

[Јas]

IIRC that was when they covered someone's head in pitch, stuck feather on it and set fire to it?

From wikipedia:
"The process involved pouring hot pitch, or tar, into a conical shaped paper "cap" which was forced onto a bound suspect's head and then allowed to cool. The "pitchcap" was then torn off taking lumps of skin and flesh with it which usually left the victim disfigured for life.

Refinements to the torture included unbinding the victim's feet to allow the spectacle of them running about in agony and in some cases, deliberately smashing their own heads in an attempt to end the torment. Another variation involved adding gunpowder to the pitchcap when cooled and then setting it alight."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Charming

[Bono]

*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.

Anyways, here I go.

Section five in the bill of rights, if interpreted in the manner the plaintiff argues for, could leads to legalization of ritual human sacrifices of unwilling victims, if the person comminig the sacrifice deemed the sacrificed not be be living. I short, in resume, that the right of free exercise of religion cannot supercede the right for life not to be taken without due process of law.
If the honorable magistrate or the plaintiff have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

[Emsworth]

Section five in the bill of rights, if interpreted in the manner the plaintiff argues for, could leads to legalization of ritual human sacrifices of unwilling victims, if the person comminig the sacrifice deemed the sacrificed not be be living.

Forgive me for intruding, but while a fetus has not been "born," a person who is being sacrificed is. Your Bill of Rights does not refer to "living" (as far as I can tell), but to being "born" with rights. Surely, it cannot be disputed that such persons have been "born."

But as far as I can tell, the freedom of "conscience" is not being violated; rather, a specific action is being prohibited. The mother could still believe whatever she wants; only her actual action is being prohibited.

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.

Having read it, I can't see how one could interpret it that way.
The text itself does not seem to support that view.

Most of the Bill of Rights actually deals with the preservation of the established Church, and with the royal succession. Pretty much everything else is only a suggestion to the King: "ought" or "ought not," not "shall" or "shall not."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To begin with, Section 1 of the Bill of Rights clearly establishes that "All individuals are born equally free and independent", hence the unborn are not free and independent and therefore whatever rights they may enjoy are clearly subordinate to those who are born.

Section 2 of that same bill states that "seeking and obtaining happiness" is a right.  My client asserts that being required to carry her fetus to term would make her unhappy.  Therfore initiative #17 is abridging that right to seek happiness.

Section 5 of the Bill of Rights not only guarentees my client the right to hold whatever philosophical opinions she may have, but also guarentees that she shall not be restrained from acting upon those in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of herown conscience;provided he does not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious or philosophical pursuits.

By seeking a second trimester abortion, she is not distrubing the public peace, nor is she seeking to disturb those who hold to beliefs differing from her.

I also urge this court to consider the possible ramifications if this court should find otherwise than as I argue.  Upholding the present law concerning abortion would serve to legitimize, insofar as our Bill of Rights is concerned, not only laws that prohibit abortions in certain circumstance, but also potential laws that would require abortions in certain circumstances, regardless of the philosophical beliefs of the pregnant person.  The only possible way of preventing that dangerous duality would be to find that the unborn have rights, which would be a novel idea unsubstantiated by either the text of the Bill of Rights or the common law.

Both laws that prohibit abortion and laws that require abortion are abhorent to individual liberty as they restrict people from the free exercise of their philosophical beliefs and thus should be found to be against that free excise protected by our Buill of Rights.

[John Dibble]

Section 5 of the Bill of Rights not only guarentees my client the right to hold whatever philosophical opinions she may have, but also guarentees that she shall not be restrained from acting upon those in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of herown conscience;provided he does not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious or philosophical pursuits.

By seeking a second trimester abortion, she is not distrubing the public peace, nor is she seeking to disturb those who hold to beliefs differing from her.

If I may ask a question of the plaintiff - would this logic apply to, say, animal cruelty laws. For instance, if I wanted to skin a dog alive, could I not argue that I have the right to do so because it is agreeable to the dictates of my own conscience?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Provided that it was indeed your dog (or you had the permission of the owner of the dog) and that you did not do so in a manner that would disturb the public peace, then yes.  Government should not be in the business of legislating against stupidity since giving government that power gives it the power to do almost anything.

[John Dibble]

Alright, I've reached a decision, and I'm gonna keep it brief. I now see how unfortunate it is that our bill of rights is so verbose - there are so many ways to interpret it. However, I do not believe that the interpretation of Ernest is the correct one. He is, of course, taking section 5 completele literally, but I do not feel that an interpretation like this is in the intended realm or spirit of this amendment. Further, the opportunity to have an abortion was never denied for this woman - she was free to have one in her first trimester, and missing two or three periods should have clued her in that she was preggers. As to the argument that she has the right to pursue happiness, she indeed does, but I don't believe this issue infringes upon that. Further, she could have easily avoided pregnancy by means of birth control or not having sex - she had a choice in these matters, and it is for her to deal with the consequences.

[Ebowed]

An excellent decision.

[John Dibble]

BTW, now that I've actually had to interpret this bill of rights, I'm thinking we might want to simplify it so interpretation is a little more clear cut. I think that section 5 was really just meant to be a freedom of religion thing.

[The Dowager Mod]

This is going to the supreme court i hope.

[John Dibble]

This is going to the supreme court i hope.

Considering the issue is over a regional constitution, I don't think they have jurisdiction.

[Emsworth]

I urge someone to appeal this to the Supreme Court on federal constitutional grounds, rather than regional ones, so that there is a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW, now that I've actually had to interpret this bill of rights, I'm thinking we might want to simplify it so interpretation is a little more clear cut. I think that section 5 was really just meant to be a freedom of religion thing.

And you are going to tell me that the people who want to prohibit abortion are not trying to impose their religious interpretation of when life begins on others?

[Ebowed]

What if it were an embyrologist imposing his scientific opinion on others.  This isn't a clear-cut religious issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Alright, I've reached a decision, and I'm gonna keep it brief. I now see how unfortunate it is that our bill of rights is so verbose - there are so many ways to interpret it. However, I do not believe that the interpretation of Ernest is the correct one. He is, of course, taking section 5 completele literally, but I do not feel that an interpretation like this is in the intended realm or spirit of this amendment. Further, the opportunity to have an abortion was never denied for this woman - she was free to have one in her first trimester, and missing two or three periods should have clued her in that she was preggers. As to the argument that she has the right to pursue happiness, she indeed does, but I don't believe this issue infringes upon that. Further, she could have easily avoided pregnancy by means of birth control or not having sex - she had a choice in these matters, and it is for her to deal with the consequences.

The Bill of Rights says that one may "(act) upon those religious or philosophical beliefs in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience".  Requiring the plaintiff to make a philosophical decison according to a government-imposed deadline is clearly contravening the literal words of the Bill of Rights.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And finallly it is a shame that a jurist as respected has Dibble has been seduced by the siren song of intent in contravening the clear and literal meaning of the words in our Constitution.  It would appear that he has chose to interpret gray as both a shade of black and and a shade of white in order to justify not requiring the law to be black and white instead of shades of gray.

[Ebowed]

Ernest, the Bill of Rights allows one to believe whatever they would like about the issue as to when life begins, but it says you can't carry out these beliefs if they disturb the public peace, i.e. break the law.  And the Abortion Initiative is the law.

The Abortion Initiative and the Bill of Rights do not contradict in any way.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wasn't arguing over the case on Federal grounds, so this case will not be appealed higher by me.  I strongly disagree with the decision reached, especially since a finding in favor of the plaintiff could have been reached on narrower grounds that the ones used.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, the Bill of Rights allows one to believe whatever they would like about the issue as to when life begins, but it says you can't carry out these beliefs if they disturb the public peace, i.e. break the law.  And the Abortion Initiative is the law.

If the interpretation of disturbing the public peace is breaking a law regardless of its constitutionality, then the government could pass whatever laws they like,  and our bill of rights would have no meaning.  That is not was meant by disturbing the public peace.  Private acts that do not affect others do not disturb the public peace at all. The Abortion Initiative makes at the very least, an extraconstitutional determination that a fetus 91 days old or older has rights that can be infringed, a determination that contradicts the express text of the bill of rights in my opinion, but unfortunately not that of the court.

[Ebowed]

It was not a private act because the fetus involved is protected under the law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It was not a private act because the fetus involved is protected under the law.

A law that in my opinion is unconstitutional under any literal interpretation of the constitution.  By what constitutional provision does the government have authority to protect a fetus?