13th Amendment

[John Abney-Hastings]

I have just finished reading Chrichton's Next and it raises some of the legal issues around medical research and genetic engineering.

How does the 13th Amendment interact with the patenting of cells, genes, and genetic mechanisms?

[Text]
Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

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.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
[End]

Can a company own a part of a human? I'm not talking about tissue mass or a donated kidney, I'm talking about the cells and genes which are still inside a live human.

What Supreme Court rulings apply to the matter? Also, what international treaties against the ownership of humans has the US signed?

[Thomas777]

I have just finished reading Chrichton's Next and it raises some of the legal issues around medical research and genetic engineering.

How does the 13th Amendment interact with the patenting of cells, genes, and genetic mechanisms?

It doesn't. Biological material does not constitute a Person. If people were being used to harvest biological material without their consent, or under pain of duress, Amend. XIII would be invoked.



Can a company own a part of a human? I'm not talking about tissue mass or a donated kidney, I'm talking about the cells and genes which are still inside a live human.
Hard to say. I don't see why a person of full capacity could not contract with another person to permit their biological material to be harvested, researched, or used. That said, the constituent elements of that person would not be the property of the other contracting party. If the person in possession of the bargained for material failed to perform on the contract, Amendment XIII would likely prohibit specific performance as a remedy, but would leave other remedies available.

What Supreme Court rulings apply to the matter?
Good question. Outside of post-civil war era case authority, and Civil Rights era precedent, you would likely only find treatment on Amendment XIII in labor law controversies in which it was invoked as a reason to preclude specific performance.


Also, what international treaties against the ownership of humans has the US signed?

I don't know...another good question. However, bear in mind that treaties only enjoy the force of Federal law and are trumped by the Constitution of the United States if provisions contained therein conflict with rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Jake Featherston]

bear in mind that treaties only enjoy the force of Federal law and are trumped by the Constitution of the United States if provisions contained therein conflict with rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ratified treaties occupy a middle-ground, so to speak, where they are superior to Federal legislation, but inferior to the Constitution?

[Thomas777]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ratified treaties occupy a middle-ground, so to speak, where they are superior to Federal legislation, but inferior to the Constitution?

A treaty enjoys the force of Federal law, and in event of a conflicts of law issue, there is an enduring debate as to how the issue is to be properly resolved.

I'll post some material on the Bricker Amendment, Missouri v. Holland, and some other precedent that is a handy primer on this sort of thing.

In short, the Constitution of the United States trumps treaty convention, yet concern remains about the ability of the legislature (in conjuction with the SCOTUS) to effect changes to federal law so as to comply with treaty provisions that would undermine the sovreign authority of the Constitution. Its more complicated than that, but that is sort of a nutshell summary. Does that make any sense?