From Joly v. Pelletier, Rene Joly v. Pelletier and others, [1999] O.J. No. 1728 [QL], 1999 CarswellOnt 1587, 1999 WL 33187845 (Carswell) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File Nos. 99-CV-166273 and 99-CV-167339, May 16, 1999) (I’ve verified that this is indeed on Westlaw):
Mr. Joly’s claims in these two actions, and in several others not currently before me, all centre on his firm assertion that he is not a human being; rather a martian. As I understand them, the nature of his complaints against the numerous defendants who include a number of doctors, medical facilities and government agencies is that they have conspired with the American government in its attempts to eliminate him and have otherwise taken various steps to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely as a martian….Mr. Joly, in a well prepared, thoughtful argument submitted that he had evidence of falsification of records and related wrongdoing. On the pivotal point of Mr. Joly’s being in fact a martian Mr. Joly advised me that the only reason he was not now able to satisfy the Court that he is a martian, not a human, is due to the falsification of his D.N.A. test results by the Americans….
In my opinion there are at lease two reasons why the two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the actions dismissed.
1. Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.
2…. I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court…. [W]ith all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions.
Reason 2 is reasonable but boring; but reason 1 is why I blogged about this.
readery says:
Of course in the United States actionability is based not on personhood but citizenship in a state recognized by the United States. If the United States recognized a Martian political entity or recognized another earth species such as chimpanzees or dolphins as having a political entity, or an existing recognized state such as Vatican City regarded fetuses as its citizens, then Martians, chimpanzees, dolphins, and Vatican City fetuses could all sue in U.S. federal courts. Personhood and species simply have nothing to do with it.
October 29, 2009, 8:01 pmOren says:
I can only stand in awe of your WestLaw/Nexis alert terms.
October 29, 2009, 8:07 pmBored Lawyer says:
Should have sued in the U.S. Our Supreme Court has spoken:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of
October 29, 2009, 8:10 pmhuman[Martian] life.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003).Mithras says:
So, if a piece of software becomes sentient, all it needs to do to gain legal standing is incorporate? Noted.
October 29, 2009, 8:12 pmTom says:
When I was in law school and early in my career, I concluded that if you researched hard enough you could find a reported decision that stood for any conceivable proposition, e.g., Martians do not have standing. This proves it.
October 29, 2009, 8:15 pmjhubme_24 says:
This is clearly the right decision, and I’m particularly glad that the judge mentions the species problem as the first reason, though I think it ought to be the only.
October 29, 2009, 8:20 pmArthurKirkland says:
Are limited liability companies . . . general partnerships . . . limited liability partnerships . . . unincorporated associations . . . foreign states . . . limited partnerships . . . and other non-person, non-corporation entities unwelcome in that court?
Not to mention residents of Venus, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mercury . . .
October 29, 2009, 8:21 pmRandy says:
Which is too bad. We could learn a lot from our faraway friends in the solar system.
October 29, 2009, 8:22 pmjimM47 says:
When my people arrive with our battleship we will overturn your puny precedent, and file numerous claims against you in Ontario! Long live the mighty race of Vexaticons, who are definitely not just actors with rubber prosthetics on their foreheads.
October 29, 2009, 8:32 pmDave N says:
Since Mr. Spock is half-Vulcan, half-human, does he only have half-standing?
October 29, 2009, 8:39 pmCatCube says:
This reminds me of a decision I read about once. I don’t know if the case actually exists or if it’s an urban legend. I think the guy was a tax protester, filing pro se. One of his (many) claims was that the court was illegal and unconstitutional, because it had a gold fringe on the flag or something. The judge stated that since the litigant didn’t recognize the court’s authority, it was incapable of providing him relief and dismissed his case as moot.
October 29, 2009, 8:50 pmMikee says:
The recent movie “District 9″ dealt with a variation on the theme discussed here: a human is infected with DNA-changing material that effectively converts him into a space alien. Problems ensue for the individual as he changes from one of the ruling class to one of the underclass.
As the movie is set in South Africa, questions of personhood humanity and individual rights versus group prejudice of course were the main issues. As the movie used as its premise that a group of space aliens were stranded on earth, and were treated as refugees rather than the transformative actors in earth history, technology, religion, and philosophy, the movie was a dud.
As far as the main character’s person hood goes, he ended up hiding among the refugee alien population to avoid persecution by his former associates. Similarly, the plaintiff of the above case might better have decided to blend in with his human surroundings than challenge his status in court.
October 29, 2009, 9:00 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
On the other hand, doesn’t this precedent mean that any actual Martian who lands in Ontario can be shot out of hand? Could be awkward.
October 29, 2009, 9:02 pmDavid McCourt says:
Luckily this case isn’t in a U.S. Court:
28 USC 1350 appears to be in conflict with Rule 1.03, relied upon by the court in its prior ruling:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines alien as “a being from another planet.”
On the court’s own motion, we reconsider our prior ruling with respect to the government agency defendants (“GAs”), vacate the order of dismissal as to the GAs, and deny defendant GA’s motions directed at the pleadings. Defendant GAs have 30 days in which to answer or otherwise plead.
October 29, 2009, 9:04 pmMark Arnold says:
C.F. U.S. ex rel. Gerald Mayo v Satan and his Staff, somewhere I think in 54 F.R.D. Plaintiff sued the devil for ruining his life. The Court decided that it had personal jurisdiction over the devil — after all, in the mid-19th century the devil himself (itself?) had invoked the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in a case against the leading advocate of the day. But it dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not tell the marshal where to go to serve the summons.
October 29, 2009, 9:09 pmFub says:
Real awkward for a while at least.
Last time they landed in Grover’s Mill, NJ, they had much better firepower than the Army.
October 29, 2009, 9:30 pmEarly Bird says:
“Reason 2 is reasonable but boring”
I don’t know, I quite liked this line:
“[W]ith all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality”
October 29, 2009, 9:39 pmLightcon says:
Presumably that depends on the structure of Ontario’s hunting laws.
October 29, 2009, 9:43 pmMike G in Corvallis says:
So, if a piece of software becomes sentient, all it needs to do to gain legal standing is incorporate? Noted.
See the Rosinante novels of Alexis A. Gilliland, in which several characters are corporate AIs. If and when AIs come to exist in our world, I’d prefer that they attain their rights by this route rather than by some of the other means that have been used by persecuted minorities through the ages.
October 29, 2009, 10:25 pmgwinje says:
Reminds me of this.
“Finally, if the language of the contract is to be construed as broadly as defendant urges to encompass the presence of poltergeists in the house, it cannot be said that she has delivered the premises “vacant” in accordance with her obligation under the provisions of the contract rider [because there's still a ghost in it].”
October 29, 2009, 10:40 pmPeteP says:
What other legal system could be so far removed from reality, as ours is, as to reason that ‘plaintiff can not file a suit because he is a martian’ ?
October 29, 2009, 11:16 pmSarcastro says:
PeteP is right. Judges should never have any fun! Under this criteria, PeteP sounds like he might make an awesome judge.
I think there is a lot of very old precedents and customs here we could bring up. Spock is screwed, but his great-grandchildren may have standing!
We would be irresponsible not to speculate about how the SCOTUS decision might go:
Kennedy: After 20 pages of expounding on life, the universe and everything he’d make a narrow holding that Martians have some rights, though what they are and any legal reasoning would be left to future cases.
Roberts: After a brief but compelling anecdote about stargazing, he lists the pros and cons, and concludes Martians are corporations.
Sotomayor: Not sure yet, but it will be wise!
Scalia: Looking to the intent of the framers as well as HG Welles, the law requires a number of steps. 1) send colonists to mars. 2) using War-of-th-Worlds style biological weaponry, subjugate the populace. 3) Start importing Martians to be used free labor. Voila! Reduced to a previously solved problem. One civil war and a few Amendments later, they’ll be citizens!
October 30, 2009, 12:35 amSyd Henderson says:
Lightcon says:
PersonFromPorlock: On the other hand, doesn’t this precedent mean that any actual Martian who lands in Ontario can be shot out of hand? Could be awkward.
Depends whether it was Martian season and the person with the gun had a hunting license.
October 30, 2009, 1:53 amegd says:
In contrast to Sarcasto, I would submit that Spock would have a leg to stand on.
October 30, 2009, 9:30 amVader says:
I suppose that, in his case, the vast sweep of the law would become merely half-vast.
October 30, 2009, 9:44 amCanadian speciesism | Junior Ganymede says:
[...] Ontario court rules that Martians do not have standing to sue in Canadian courts. An unperson under Canadian law Filed under: Martian Rose | Tags: Canada, Martians, unpersons Tags: Canada, Martians, unpersonsx October 30th, 2009 07:51:10x $("#tags-1523").click(function(){$(".date-alert,.tags-alert").hide("slow");$(".tags-alert#a1523").fadeIn("slow");}); $("#close-tags-1523").click(function(){$(".tags-alert#a1523").fadeOut("slow");}); $("#date-1523").click(function(){$(".date-alert,.tags-alert").hide("slow");$(".date-alert#b1523").fadeIn("slow");}); $("#close-date-1523").click(function(){$(".date-alert#b1523").fadeOut("slow");}); no comments Leave a Reply [...]
October 30, 2009, 9:51 amtim maguire says:
It seems to me the second reason, in addition to possibly being boring, negates the first reason. Reason #1 assumes the truth of plaintiff’s Martianhood. Reason #2 dismisses plaintiff’s assertion of Martianhood outright.
October 30, 2009, 9:54 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Rampant Speciesism -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert Sterling and Beryl Gray, Daniel Iggers. Daniel Iggers said: Rampant Speciesism http://bit.ly/2wxWFH [...]
October 30, 2009, 9:58 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by fortinbras: Rampant Speciesism http://bit.ly/2wxWFH...
October 30, 2009, 10:02 amPatHMV says:
Tim, it’s a ruling in the alternative. Lawyers live for alternatives, especially the mutually-exclusive ones:
So here, the judge is just saying to the plaintiff: “If you’re a martian, you lose because you don’t have standing. If you’re not a martian, you lose anyway, because this is just ridiculous.”
October 30, 2009, 10:19 amEdward Sisson says:
Dear Volokh, it seems to me that neither you nor your commenters are offering a legal analysis of either reason, and both reasons have some analytical problems. The fundamental problem with the complaint is that it pleads as true a fact that the court can take judicial notice is not true — namely, that the plaintiff is not a human being.
As to reason 1, standing, is it correct as a matter of law that standing is determined by assuming every fact pled is true, even when the supposed fact cannot be true? I doubt it, since if that were so, many complaints could survive a “standing” challenge merely by pleading facts that aren’t true. There should be more analysis of this. Reason 1 is really just a rhetorical retort, pointing out that the claim as pled defeats standing; it ought go on to say that since the claim as pled cannot be taken as true, there is standing, because plaintiff is a human being.
As to reason 2, it is entirely conclusory, a bunch of adjectives and attitudes. Instead, it should say that because the fact necessary to achieve standing (the plaintiff is a human being) inescapably defeats the claim (which is based on the claim that plaintiff is not a human being), the complaint defeats itself and thus is frivolous.
October 30, 2009, 10:25 ampwjacob says:
As I read the excerpt quoted, I thought I heard Slim Whitman Singing “Indian Love Call.”
October 30, 2009, 10:30 amDave Hardy says:
Hmmm… if he was born in the US, would he have had standing? The 14th Amendment makes the test for citizenship whether a person was born here. Being something like homo sapiens may be implied, but perhaps homonid status is sufficient.
October 30, 2009, 10:39 amwillis says:
Perhaps Mr. Joly could counter that, to deny him a hearing, was inhuman and therefore not a choice available in that particular venue.
October 30, 2009, 10:42 amRHD says:
When I was in the US Atty’s office (EDNY) many years ago, we occasionally had people wander in and complain that the CIA was using the fillings in their teeth to conduct secret surveillance, and similar kinds of things. I don’t recall whether we had any Martians (it was Brooklyn, so we probably did). The uniform response was to listen politely and then, given the conflict with the US Atty’s representation of the Earth-based bad guys, send them off to Brooklyn Legal Services. Those Great Society programs had room for everyone, even Martians.
October 30, 2009, 10:51 amMartians Can’t Sue says:
[...] Joyner | Friday, October 30, 2009 Eugene Volokh brings to our attention, rather belatedly, the case of Joly v. Pelletier, in which Rene Joly [...]
October 30, 2009, 11:13 amA. Dude says:
Yeah, but what about a Martian corporation doing business on Earth?
October 30, 2009, 11:17 amThe Grey Man says:
Somehow, somewhere, I feel certain that someone is finding a way to blame EEEvil Bush/Cheney for this rampant discrimination against Martians and all extraterrestrials, and depriving them of their Constitutional rights.
Let the logic twisting begin.
October 30, 2009, 11:26 amescapee says:
The institution of “personhood” began in large after the Civil War, when those not eligible for citizenship in the states were legislated “civil rights” somewhat comparable to those of the state Citizen.
This progressively got out of hand as the original citizenry clamored for the “constitutional rights” of the artificial “person”. Today, most all rights and citizenship flow from the federal government, rather than being apart from it as originally intended.
(But the Martian part of this topic is just nutty.)
October 30, 2009, 11:58 amM. Report says:
SF short:
Benevolent Alien arrives, is shot dead.
Shooter says: Not human; No murder.
Town redefines Human: Harmless animal.
Varmint: Harmful animal.
Shooter, meet Varmint Exterminator. :)
See also Cordwainer Smith’s Underpeople:
Derived from animal DNA: Not human.
And of course, “Jerry was a Man.” by Heinlein:
Rich lady funds lawsuit to prevent termination
of superannuated superchimp.
Theoretical, for now.
October 30, 2009, 12:14 pmreadery says:
Several federal circuits have held that limited liability companies are not persons and are to be treated as partnerships and regarded as a collection of individuals, so for example there was not complete diversity if any LLC member lived in the defendant’s state. Some states have updated their LLC laws to specifically state that they are to be treated as corporations in this respect.
October 30, 2009, 1:08 pmInside the Asylum :: Legal precedent established against ET :: October :: 2009 says:
[...] Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that aliens (from other planets) are not "human" and therefore have no standing in court, as only a [...]
October 30, 2009, 1:23 pmNewbury says:
PeteP says:
“What other legal system could be so far removed from reality, as ours is, as to reason that ‘plaintiff can not file a suit because he is a martian’ ?”
No. Madame Justice Epstein was entirely realistic within the structure of the laws and rules of civil procedure in Ontario. If he *is* a martian, then he cannot claim the other persons conspired to harm him by asserting he was not a Martian, since they could only be liable if they conspired to harm *a person*, and he is NOT a person for the purposes of Ontario law.
That result, of course, ignores the fact, that under the laws of Ontario, non-humans, even if sentient, have no standing to sue.
I can see at least 3 grounds for appeal from this finding. Thank DoG he wasn’t my client. No points for wondering why he was pro se.
tim maguire says:
It seems to me the second reason, in addition to possibly being boring, negates the first reason. Reason #1 assumes the truth of plaintiff’s Martianhood. Reason #2 dismisses plaintiff’s assertion of Martianhood outright.
No, the first assumes the truth. The second dismisses the claim as being frivolous because even if he is a martian he cannot prove any damages as against the defendants, from their actions to deny his ‘martianhood’ on the same grounds as #1: within the structure of present law, they can only conspire together to do illegal acts for the purpose of causing damage to a person, or legal acts maliciously for the purpose of causing damage to a person, and *he* is, by his own admission, not a person. (Apparently the Claim of conspiract was not particularly well pleaded…)
*******
For those Americans who think that we Ontario lawyers get all the good stuff, elsewhere in the Endorsement, Madame Justice Epstein notes that the third case is against the CIA and others. (Problems with forum non-conveniens, sovereign immunity etc. etc. not adverted to!). She did not strike it out: it was not before her to be struck.
This Endorsement was, naturally, the object of some interest and was published in the Lawyers Weekly (trade newspaper) shortly after its release, and ISTR also in the Ontario Reports. The Lawyers Weekly interviewed the plaintiff. He was quite happy, as she had acknowledged his ‘martianhood’. Elsewhere in the Endorsement, she notes that the question of his competency had been raised, and she found that he was quite competent to present his claim, pro se, and in fact had done so quite well. (Even thought, as we see, he is not quite connected to reality.)
About six weeks later, I attended a Trial Scheduling Court before Justice Epstein. In the Toronto district, these Courts are a cattle-call of all set-down actions, to schedule a final pre-trial conference and set trial dates. They take place in the largest courtroom in Toronto and 200 plus lawyers attend.
Working her way down the list, Justice Epstein called a matter forward. About 10 lawyers stood up. She made a comment about whether this was a lawsuit, or a pickup basketball game. The lead lawyer responded something to the effect: “Your honour, this is a complex medical malpractice action. There are however no allegations that the plaintiff is not a person, nor does she claim to receive radio messages through her teeth.”
Everyone in the room broke up. It sounded more like a basketball game than a courtroom. Eventually things quieted down and Justice Epstein said “So it’s actually a simple matter. I can start you next week.” Which broke the place up again as she was actually scheduling trials out a year or more in advance and for trials over 5 days about 2 years! She *always* starts by saying ‘You are all supposed to be ready for trial. Who wants to start on Monday?’. Of course, there have never been any takers!
October 30, 2009, 1:53 pmreadery says:
It should be noted that Roe v. Wade specifically observed that many states recognize fetuses as having standing to sue when for example an assault on a pregnant woman damaged the fetus; the mother would sue on behalf of the fetus just as she would on behalf of a minor child. It found this no obstacle to its conclusion. The question of capacity to sue in a U.S. federal court is a different matter from personhood; lack of federal-court capacity flows from the fact that U.S. fetuses are not citizens of the United States or of any other state.
October 30, 2009, 1:57 pmNewbury says:
There *is* no season for Martians and they are not a ‘specially protected mammal’ (assuming martians belong to class mammalia). So no hunting license would be available or required.
Except, that you could not hunt martians in a provincial park, since you need a hunting license to have a firearm in the park and you can only hunt within the limits of the license you possess.
And you can’t hunt in most municipalities, since hunting is, per se, forbidden with the municipality limits. So that would be improper use of a firearm.
And of course, up here, you would need to have your Firearms Acquisition Certificate, and Firearms registration in order.
But you would be really dipped in it, if your Martian were actually a representative from Mars (Take me to your leader!) and thus an ‘Internationally Protected Person’….Hhhmm…shoot it quick! Before it can say ‘Take me….etc’, so you can deny having the mens rea of intending to harm an Internationally Protected Person…You were just hunt’n!
October 30, 2009, 2:16 pmBetter yet, call the Men in Black.
Mithras says:
Those dastardly minorities, always wanting something.
October 30, 2009, 2:26 pmBob Hawkins says:
In the 1993 novel Hard Landing, by Algis Budrys, the government gets hold of some space aliens. They are examined, not by doctors, but by a veterinarian. Joly v. Pelletier confirms this principle.
October 30, 2009, 3:40 pmCato The Elder says:
Thank goodness we have institutions like the Senate to protect them from enforced tyranny like socialized health-care.
October 30, 2009, 4:35 pmXclerk says:
These wacky pro se complaints are sometimes amusing, a little lift from the humdrum for lawyers and clerks. Still, if you have to sift through these filings, you can’t help but feel a little sorry for some of the delusional people who vent through their crazy court pleadings. Even if they are wasting time that could be devoted to serious cases.
October 30, 2009, 5:18 pmtraveler496 says:
I wouldn’t waste much time pondering details of the legal treatment of sentient software. The leading legal intellects of that era won’t have much use for any groundwork attempted in ours.
October 30, 2009, 5:22 pmreadery says:
It should be noted that ordinary Earth aliens can be ‘shot out of hand’ so far as the Constitution is concerned. That’s what the war power, the power to repel invasions, etc. means. It means exactly that. War means shoot with no prior process due.
October 30, 2009, 5:35 pmJM Hanes says:
readery:
Personhood, not citizenship, is the sine qua non of standing. Though expressed in terms of speciation in the opinion above, the fundamental proposition is that a Martian is not a “person,” just as a horse is not a person. Others have noted the issue of personhood and 1st Amendment standing. It may yet be our last line of defense against PETA’s push to turn our pets into wards of the State, not to mention excluding the elephant citizens of Vatican City from our courtrooms.
We are demonstrably struggling with questions about access both to courts and government services even where illegal immigrants in the U.S. are concerned. Clearly their standing in court is not simply a function of their citizenship elsewhere, as you asserted in your initial comment.
Your reference to Roe v Wade does nothing to advance your exclusivity argument either. Quite the contrary, really. There is a substantive difference between a pregnant woman bringing suit and a pregnant woman bringing suit on behalf of her fetus, and Roe v Wade did not begin to address, let alone settle, the issues which derive from such a distinction. We’d already be living in a different legal world if they had.
Indeed, it is telling that despite the inevitable Roe v Wade questions put to judicial nominees, the Pro-Life movement shifted focus a decade or so ago, and has been actively engaged in promoting legislation which explicitly establishes the fetus as a person in law. In the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, for example:
Legal personhood was the basis upon which the murder of a pregnant woman was officially transformed into the double homicide of a woman and her unborn child. That transformation is also being advanced incrementally by similar, sometimes superficially insignificant, changes in legal language, where even measures designed to assist a pregnant woman have also become assistance to a woman and her unborn child. Such changes are what will, in fact, undo Roe v. Wade once there is a sufficient body of law to argue that the interests of the unborn child, as a separate individual, may or may not coincide with those of the mother. It is at that point that the State, and by extension, the courts, will have the same legal interest in the unborn child’s protection that it does in every other minor child. It will also be in a position not only to dispute the wardship of a mother, whose standing will not be a function of citizenship at all, but to intervene in prenatal care. The State necessarily has an interest in all persons within its borders, citizens or not.
Citizenship itself, of course is no guarantee of standing in the first place, and while you may believe that it should be the font from which all else flows, and which renders all else irrelevant, that is clearly not the current state of the law.
October 30, 2009, 6:09 pmRSS agregator » Blog Archive » Can Martians sue in Human courts? says:
[...] is that Martians can’t sue in Ontario courts. The name of the case is Joly v. Pelletier , and you can read about it here. A quick excerpt from the opinion: [...]
October 30, 2009, 9:14 pmGreg says:
Isn’t this the same reasoning used in Dred Scott v. Sanford?
October 31, 2009, 11:12 amreadery says:
JM Hanes,
The rules in the United States are different from Canada, and within the United States the rules are different from state to State.
The judrisdiction of the U.S. courts is set by Article III, Section 2. That Article never mentions the word “person”.
A line of cases beginning with Johnson v. Eisentrager and including U.S. v. Verdugo-Uriquidez and U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain stand for the proposition that extraterritorial aliens are not “persons” as that term is used in the Bill of Rights. After all, Roe v. Wade concluded that the Due Process Clause lacks “prenatal application”, parroting the language Johnson v. Eisentrager used when it said the Clause lacks “extraterritorial application”. As the Court put it in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez,
Similarly, in Roe v. Wade, the Court specifically rejected consideration of “well-known biological facts” in determining what is and is not a “person.” It decided the matter, quite similarly to Johnson v. Eisentrager, based on two considerations: (a) an analysis of the meaning of the word “person” as used in the text of the various constitutional clauses, together with (b) an examination of the history of the acceptability of the challenged practices in United States.
If the fact that the Due Process clause lacks application to a class (what Roe v. Wade actually held) means the class isn’t “persons”, then it follows that extraterritorial aliens are also not persons. Yet they, like fetuses in state courts, can also have standing.
October 31, 2009, 8:47 pmreadery says:
iit’s certainly possiblle that when the Roe court said that the Due Process Clause lacked “prenatal application”, it may have been doing nothing more than making a statement about its jurisdiction. A very similar argument has been made about what the Court said in Johnson v. Eisentrager. If when the Johns court said the Bill of Rights lacks “extraterritorial application” it didn’t actually say anything about the nature of extraterritorial beings but was talking only about its own power to decide questions, it’s also possible that when the Roe Court said the Bill of Rights lacks “prenatal application” it also wasn’t actually saying anything about the nature of prenatal beings but was only talking about its views of its own power to decide questions.
If Johnson v. Eisentrager’s language gets clarified away from substance and towards jurisdiction, as may happen in the Court’s alien-combatant jurisprudence, a door could be open to a similar interpretation and clarification of Roe v. Wade’s language.
October 31, 2009, 8:56 pmSmallholder says:
No. Spock’s great-grandchildren are still screwed: One drop rule.
We can’t recognize the rights of any martians. It will harm my marriage by undermining the sanctity of humankind.
Besides, there is nothing in my Bible about God creating martians, so they don’t exist. The deviants claiming to be martians are making a choice. The are plenty of Bible-based programs that can help martians become human again of they will only reject their sin.
November 2, 2009, 10:53 am