PETA Lawsuit Against Sea World On Behalf Of Killer Whales Claiming Animals Are Deprived Of Thirteenth Amendment Constitutional Right Not To Be Slaves

You can't make this stuff up:

The animal rights group PETA filed their official complaint against SeaWorld Inc. early Wednesday morning for allegedly violating the thirteenth amendment rights of orca whales.

The official complaint submitted to the US District Court for Southern California lists five SeaWorld orcas as collective plaintiffs in the case, according to the complaint. Three of those whales live in the San Diego SeaWorld park. The other two live in the Orlando location.

"The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery, and these orcas are, by definition, slaves," said PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk in a statement.

PETA alleges that the two SeaWorld locations restrained and kept the whales in “constant involuntary physical confinement,” with no means to escape. The complaint also accuses SeaWorld of depriving the whales of “their ability to live in a manner of their choosing,” and for “intentionally subjugating” the whales’ “wills, desires, and/or natural drives and needs of [SeaWorld Inc.’s] own will and whims.”...

PETA replied, saying "The merits of this case are strong. The existence of slavery does not depend upon the species of the slave."

Under current law, animals are still considered property, according to the Associated Press.

PETA's lawyers are claiming that the Thirteenth Amendment does not use the language of "person" (e.g., "no person shall be deprived of...") but simply says that slavery shall not exist. They then are arguing that "the existence of slavery does not depend upon the species of the slave." I suppose if the Constitution has no fixed original meaning in any sense, there is then nothing wrong with arriving at this interpretation via the broad language of the text alone. Yes it's absurd, but one would have to appeal to the historical context and original meaning of the Amendment to prove the obviousness of the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment applies to human beings and not animals. I would assume that no federal judge will be enough of a "living Constitutionalist" to not simply dismiss this case, but one has to wonder why that should be the case if original meaning is not what is looked to first and foremost in Constitutional interpretation (as many judges and law professors seem to believe to be the case). Tweet