Oral Arguments Heard For First Time In Federal Court Arguing Constitution's 13th Amendment Applies To Sea World Killer Whales

“This case is on the next frontier of civil rights,” said PETA’s attorney Jeffrey Kerr, representing the five orcas (aka killer whales) in a 13th Amendment challenge where for the first time oral arguments were made before a federal district court claiming the Constitution prohibits Shamu from being enslaved. Ah, the wondrous absurdities of a truly "living, breathing, and evolving" Constitution. To read the article reporting on this gibberish actually being argued in a federal courthouse visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/san-diego-judge-hears-both-sides-in-petas-killer-whale-slavery-case-sea-world-asks-dismissal/2012/02/06/gIQAxxXauQ_story.html

The PETA lawyers are arguing that the 13th Amendment states "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist in the United States," making no mention of human beings (unlike, for example, the 14th Amendment stating that "no person shall..."). They argue that catching wild killer whales and domesticating them is a form of slavery that shall not exist. If one views historical context and original meaning irrelevant to applying the Constitution today, I don't see why this cannot be seen as a perfectly credible and legitimate Constitutional argument, despite it being patently absurd on its face. There is nothing substantively less legitimate about this reasoning than the sort that has led to all sorts of ridiculous decisions that ignore historical context and original meaning and currently serve as binding precedent. Tweet