Is There a Laugh Test Anymore in American Constitutional Law?

Is there a laugh test in American constitutional law?  That is, are there some constitutional arguments so ridiculous that an American court will treat them with the utter contempt that they deserve?  We may be about to find out.

This article reports that PETA — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — is planning to file a law suit seeking the recognition of constitutional rights for killer whales that perform at marine parks.  Their argument: the whales are being subjected to “involuntary servitude,” which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

I hope we all favor the ethical treatment of animals.  But we should also favor the ethical treatment of the Constitution.  We should also favor the ethical treatment of our own minds, which means not insulting them by making obviously spurious arguments in favor of every cause in which we happen to believe, however worthy we think it might be.  As a reminder to PETA, the Thirteenth Amendment was written and ratified to end human slavery.

One is tempted to blame PETA and their ideologue lawyers (or maybe mercenary lawyers, if they are being paid) for using a federal court — which, after all, has a lot of real business to attend to — as a platform for such a stunt and for making an argument which, if accepted, would be the final nail in the idea that the Constitution has any meaning at all apart from the whims of activist judges.  No small blame for this, however, must also rest with America’s courts themselves, and with its legal-education establishment, which has for two generations at least treated with the utmost serious constitutional claims that are only slightly less fanciful.

Read more at CatholicVote.org