The capacity of a cadre of legislators and judges to create two new classes of citizens, empowering one of’em —putatively on behalf of the other— to commit crimes as if above the law, in ways that violate the Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, and the RICO act, are issues I haven’t seen addressed elsewhere in DK.
Most of our discussion centers upon violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, since this cadre argues that its religious beliefs supercede those of all others, though not all religions and not even all Christian denominations hold that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, or pregnancy itself, possess any rights at all, let alone rights superceding those of any pregnant woman or ANYONE ELSE. Only some denominations and religions hold that pregnancy itself possesses higher rights. I may have missed discussions of other constitutional precepts militating against such higher rights, but in case those points haven’t come up, my thinking goes as follows, step by step until we reach constitutional law itself:
The key class-creation on the part of this cadre is, of course, a new form of to-be-legally recognized person, as GrafZeppelin127 phrased it:
zygote, blastocyst, embryo,fœti/fetus as person (ZBEFP).
|
If this class of persons exists, its existence purportedly justifies creation of another preferential class: that cadre of legislators and their agents (including but not limited to selected courts, law enforcement, relatives, physicians, etc). Spokesmen, let’s call’em in full total, who claim to be speaking for ZBEFPs. to interpret and enforce American law on behalf of ZBEFPs. therefore seeking to empower and equip themselves to enact, act upon, or violate whatever associated law they deem or interpret necessary for that claimed mission …
...coincidentally empowering themselves above the law far more widely still, as has been extensively discussed but bears repeating because it’s a wide reach unprecedented in this country except while slavery of Black people and murder of indigenous people was legal, practiced, and condone nationwide.
To remphasize, it’s solely by virtue of the supposed existence of the ZBEFP persons that Spokesmen claim to be vested with virtually unlimited higher rights and powers than all other Americans.
Especially —but not limited to— women and girls.
Who constitute 52% of population in states like Alabama and Georgia, and nearly 51% of the American population overall: women and girls are the MAJORITY in the US. If the American majority can be subjected to legalized crime, then all minorities/groups here also can, and we are off to the races.
<big><big>The Spokesmen appear to argue that the ZBEFP class of persons equates with all children too young to speak up for themselves. </big></big>
That would be from age -9months through roughly 18 months, because kids that little can’t verbalize/speak for themselves too well, if at all.
However, as we’ve often seen, the limited permissability of Stand-Your-Ground violence by mothers in defense of ex-utero children, and the limited availability of home nutrition programs and healthcare programs for little kids, are among innumerable examples demonstrating that the secondary class of spokesmen does not include all pre-verbal children in the primary class, only the in-utero ones. This invalidates their claim that speaking for ZBEFP is based upon speaking for all children too young to speak for themselves.
The Spokesmen in effect claim to be attorneys-in-fact representing the wishes and interests of their clients even though none of those clients can be consulted: they have no means to convey their wishes to anyone claiming to speak for them, nor to any courts inquiring as to ZBEFP consent for that particular attorney representation, the Spokesmen, who happen to be categorically opposed to possible ZBEFP preferred wishes that their souls remain with God rather be born yet.
In virtually all other American courts of law, lawyers do have to consult the clients they claim to represent —or at least specialists professionally equipped to have learned client needs and wishes— who do have the right to fire their reps asses if the clients so desire. But the Spokesmen class in effect asserts that it does NOT have to consult the wishes of those clients.
<big>Since ZBEFPs cannot fire the Spokesmen nor engage other representation, it’s clear that ZBEFPs have no actual rights as persons: they are a putative class of persons with NO rights, yet their theoretical existence UP-POWERS Spokesmen above all other American rights.
<big><big>Including to commit crimes on claimed behalf of ZBEFPs,</big></big>
And to do so without any legal penalties or consequences. And to involve, coerce, suborn, entice, etc also judges of various levels of court, sworn officers of law enforcement, medical professionals, parents, spouses, school districts and personnel, county and city governments, cults, communities, et alia, into the commission of crime as well.</big>
Before going into what those crimes are, constitutionally, let’s briefly revisit the 1970 <big> RICO Act:</big>
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally...[1]
|
Thus we can ask, is what’s illegal for most Americans to do also illegal for Spokesmen to do, and cause to be done, on behalf of their silent, nonconsensual ZBEFP clients ... and in effect aiding, abetting and etc their clients in criminals acts?
Is a ZBEFP client chargeable with a crime as all other persons theoretically can be? How would a ZBEFP client be put on trial for crime?
IOW, is crime on behalf of ZBEFP legal though it doesn’t seem to be legal on behalf of anyone else.
<big><big>We do have to acknowledge that governments always empower some of their employees —e.g., law enforcement— and departments of government —e.g., the military— to undertake some acts forbidden to everyone else</big></big> …. (except perhaps in emergency and possibly not even then — cf Stand yr Ground, above). Some of those actions those depts and employees do on behalf of the rest of us include imprisonment, kidnap (arrest), and execution of death sentence, be it in the form of war or upon court conviction.
But it’s been a while since any one of them really was authorized to impose involuntary servitude or slavery, human trafficking, forced marriage, childbearing, harvesting or use of organs, or any acts for achieving those ends.
If a girl or woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, <big>the bodily state that unwanted pregnancy forces her into arguably constitutes kidnap/arrest & imprisonment</big> by the ZBEFP and Spokesmen claiming to act on the ZBEFP behalf —merely from the inside out, rather than the usual way— and enslavement/involuntary servitude, in using her as human incubators/breeding stock, consequently human trafficking, even if by husbands, fathers, or the state.
This all suggests that kidnap, slavery, imprisonment, involuntary servitude and trafficking are legal when done by precisely one class of American citizens on behalf of precisely one class of involuntary clients, against the majority.
<big><big>In view of pregnancy’s fully factual potential to kill the mother, those legalized crimes include murder</big></big> or attempted murder, possibly of the individual client as well— or, from another constitutional viewpoint, execution of death sentence without the right to a jury trial, or confronting accusers, or questioning witnesses, or examining the evidence.
And there goes the Sixth Amendment right down the drain along with the Fourteenth.
Relatedly: a slave may be defined as:</big>
a person [who] is owned by [another], and slavery is the state of being under the control of [another] and forced to work for another. [Slaves are] considered as a property of another [through purchase or] from their birth. In slavery the slave does not have a right to leave [owners] or not work for them. Slavery is a form of forced labor [; slaves] do not receive any remuneration for the work they do. |
<big><big>The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution made slavery and involuntary servitude illegal for any individual American or governmental entity to impose except under very limited conditions:</big>
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.</big>
|
Which brings us to the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution<big><big>
</big></big>Pregnancy being so common a condition might not (in some views) seem in violation of that clause. But IS pregnancy on the books as a lawful penalty or punishment for any crime? If so, which crimes? If not, then it’s both an illegal and “unusual” punishment, besides cruel, for no crime even committed.
<big><big>But if pregnancy were a legitimate punishment for a crime it’s a penalty that cannot be imposed upon the MALE 49.8% of the population no matter what crimes they commit, simply because they don’t have any uterus. Thus pregnancy becomes a discriminatory punishment,</big></big>
Some many argue that it doesn’t embody a punishment because many females choose to bear children. Well, some people choose to live entirely indoors in their home, and that’s not imprisonment unless someone else forces them to it.
<big><big>Stumbling blocks: SOME OF THE FOLLOWING MAY MILITATE AGAINST PREGNANCY BEING MADE A PUNISHMENT or might facilitate it</big></big>
Full Faith and Credit Clause
of the Constitution:
Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
|
in association with he 14th Amendment’s
Citizenship Clause
Section 1, Clause :
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
|
and its Privileges or Immunities Clause
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....
|
plus the Constitution’s own
Privileges and Immunities [Comity] Clause [Article IV]
requiring interstate protection of "privileges and immunities," preventing each state from treating citizens of other states in a <big>discriminatory</big> manner.)
In criminal law, Kidnapping is the unlawful carrying away (asportation) and confinement of a person against their will. Thus, it is a composite crime. It can also be defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are separate crimes that when committed simultaneously upon the same person merge as the single crime of kidnapping. The asportation/abduction element is typically but not necessarily conducted by means of force or fear. That is, the perpetrator may use a weapon to force the victim into a vehicle, but it is still kidnapping if the victim is enticed to enter the vehicle willingly, e.g., in the belief it is a taxicab.
... Kidnapping can be accompanied by bodily injury which elevates the crime to aggravated kidnapping.[1]
Kidnapping of a [minor] is also known as child abduction, and these are sometimes separate legal categories.
|
and
False imprisonment occurs when a person is restricted in their personal movement within any area without justification or consent.[1] Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.[2]
Under common law, false imprisonment is both a felony and a tort.
Detention that is not false imprisonment
Even when a person is involuntarily detained, not all acts of detention amount to false imprisonment. The law may privilege a person to detain somebody else against their will. A legally authorized detention does not constitute false imprisonment.
|
and
Citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England ... in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers [criminals].
..In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant, for a crime occurring in their presence. For which crimes this is permitted may vary state by state...[77]Most states have codified the common law rule that a warrantless arrest may be made by a private person for a felony, misdemeanor or "breach of peace".[78] "Breach of peace" covers a multitude of violations in which the Supreme Court has included a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine. The term historically included theft, "nightwalking", prostitution ...
|
.
In sum, the Spokesmen class asserts a right to authorize private persons such as husbands, fathers, doctors, judges and politicians to commit citizens’ arrest of women or girls who are pregnant, also kidnapping, assault & battery, involuntary servitude, slavery, trafficking, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and murder, free of all legal penalties for the commission of those crimes.
Again, solely on the basis of creating another new class of persons they claim to represent, on whose behalf they commit those crimes, without having to consult those persons/clients as to their actual wishes.
And in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as widely discussed, since not all religions of American citizens, and not even all Christian denominations, hold or have ever held that ZBEFPs have ANY rights superceding the rights of anyone else, pregnant women included. Only some denominations and religions hold that view, thus the First Amendment should invalidate them for purposes of law.
So, <big>under our constitution and body of existing laws, <big>are crimes legal if committed by Spokesmen alone —no one else — when claimed on behalf of silent, unconsulted ZBEFPs?
<big>It appears we are finding out.</big>
Case closed: the offence rests. Your thoughts?