butafly v. the Northeast

[sentinel]

At the federal level, the Animal Protection Act of 2013, protects animals from Willful neglect, Malicious killing, Beatings, Dog fighting, cock fighting, and any other events involving animals maiming, hurting, or killing one another, torture, Impound or confine an animal without affording it access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer and Carry or convey an animal in a cruel manner.

The prohibition of bestiality in the Northeast can be seen as a regional manifestation of the Animal Protection Act of 2013. Because animals cannot consent it is reasonable to say that sex with an animal is the rape of an animal --and rape is torture. It is an act of violence. Both laws already prohibit this.

The Supreme Court of Atlasia and the Federal Constitution have already established the supremacy of the federal law and constitution over the regions. The Northeast passed the Supremacy Act, a resolution acknowledging an already known fact.

If the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast finds that the prohibition of bestiality violates the Right to Privacy clause of the Northeast Constitution then the Right to Privacy Clause must be struck down.

The Right to Privacy clause would have the Northeast government treat legal non-citizens differently than citizens, and one could even argue that the prohibition of drunk driving is a violation of the Privacy Clause. It is absurd that we are even having to debate fundamental values such as a prohibition on raping animals.

In conclusion, the Right to Privacy Clause of the Northeast Constitution was designed in a way that it obviously conflicts with federal laws. It must be struck down by this Court in order to preserve the safety and security of all living things within the Northeast.

I rest my case.

[Sopranos Republican]

Animals cannot consent to sex with a human, I believe that we should definitely be expanding the same rights that we give to humans regarding sexual violence. I already made this point during the original debate of that dreadful bill, bestiality is animal abuse. I also believe our current laws on animals rights are extremely clear, there is no room for this to be permitted.

If Representative butafly wanted to point out a perceived flaw in our constitution, he should've simply offered a constitutional amendment, not repeal basic protections under the law for animals. This is absolutely ridiculous, and I ask that the court uphold the Bestiality Criminalization Act.

I rest my case.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for your arguments.

I am going to be ruling today on the matter of the Bestiality Criminalization Act.

Representative butafly contends that, per Article VI, Section 5 of the Northeast Constitution, the Act is unconstitutional because each citizen is afforded an unabridged right to privacy, so long as any action does not affect another citizen. He contends that animals are not guaranteed the same protection, because they are not citizens.

One important thing to consider is the time this law was passed. According to Rinchan’s post, voting ended on March 26th, 2006 with 8 ayes, 1 nay and 1 abstention. It goes without saying that the current Northeast Constitution was not ratified until long after the passage of this law.

One must then consult the Constitution under which it was passed.

It would seem that the offending clause was part of this Constitution as well.

Governor sirnick posits that bestiality should be prohibited due to the passage of the Animal Protection Act of 2013 by the Atlasian Senate. However, Section II reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This establishes that it is incumbent upon each individual region to pass Sections III-VI. To my knowledge, the Northeast Assembly has not done that. However, the Northeast Assembly did pass a similar measure in 2010, as pointed out by Kitteh.

Article 3, Section A of the Animal Protection Act reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thefreedictionary.com defines torture as “excruciating physical or mental pain;agony.” Similarly, the 1989 Encyclopedic Edition of Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as “intense pain or suffering of body or mind.” It goes without saying that rape can be considered torture due to the traumatic effects it has on one’s mind.

It is likely that this too would violate the Northeast Constitution, by butafly’s logic. So where does this leave us? Should our regional motto now be “The Northeast: Where the men are men, and the sheep are scared”? Or is there a higher governing authority?

One must bear in mind the Federal Constitution. Article IV, Section 3:1 reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Federal Constitution provides for protection of animals, then it would override any existing protections of bestiality. Thus, I am tentatively upholding the Bestiality Criminalization Act but I do recommend that it be repealed, since the penalties are similar as those outlined in the Animal Protection Act. I also recommend that the Northeast ratify the Animal Protection Act of 2013, as it is technically losing 10% of environmental funding.

So ordered,

CJO Dallasfan65