Could the 13th Am. prohibit the factory farming of animals?

[Sean Wilson]

... in response to the language argument:
   
  That language is an activity is undeniably true. That all possible references of a word are equal is clearly false. There are archetypes, diffusions and extensions. There is, in short, a cognitive order to the anthropologic references of language. At the outer reach of linguistic reference is the metaphor (called an "extension."). Hence the idea: animals are "slaves."  Now, it is true that constitutional poetry has become "law" in the past -- witness the commerce clause and  stripping as "speech" -- but it is not true that such constructions are adopted equally with "real" references (ones closer to the archetype). (See my dissertation). Usually, some sort of large social transformation (or political hegemony) accompanies the adoption of poetry into law. One would need to show that the status of animal suffering is of such a political commodity in the larger society so as to warrant the judicial license necessary to turn yet another constitutional word into metaphor. My
 own view is that words in the Constitution should only be turned into poetry as a last resort -- a moral necessity.) 
   
  Regards.

MARK STEIN <markstein at prodigy.net> wrote:
  In response to Larry and Jon Roland,

Language is as language does.  Metaphorical meanings have in the past become real.  Which is not to say I expect it to happen here.

Mark


Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. 
Penn State University 
http://ludwig.squarespace.com/home/
 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060808/18f2b23f/attachment.html