Hacker News Reader

My understanding as a non-lawyer is that legal personhood is not predicated on membership in the human species. It is predicated on whatever precedent has established. And that there are important distinctions made in law between legal persons and natural persons. Which is why even a corporation can be considered as having personhood, and why there has been some controversy as to whether great apes in general have legal personhood.

Both legal personhood and natural personhood are just legal constructs that aren't defined by species except through precedent, which could change at any time. And, of course, membership in the human species in a scientific sense is certainly meaningless legally, as can be seen with abortion law. A fetus is not universally granted personhood rights, despite being a human in terms of genetics and taxonomy.

Slavery is another example where we can clearly see that natural personhood, as defined by the courts, was not synonymous with membership in the human species.

So, whatever unwritten standards are being used to determine personhood by the legal system could very well apply to extraterrestrials, for all we know.

In fact, the very notion of a species didn't exist when these legal concepts were invented. They go back at least to English Common Law, if not Roman Law or Biblical law or earlier.

It is still a legal void.

Can an extraterrestrial have legal representation? or represent themselves? If you are not a person you cannot participate in contracts or sign legal documents. It is a complete mess of a situation if you think about it.

And there may be also legal definitions that would have to be revised.

For example, if you enter US territory from space, you technically did not cross any borders, you simply entered American airspace without crossing a border.

If what's penalized is crossing a border, there would be no crime there.

And today I found out a female donkey was acquitted of bestiality with a human on account of testimonies to her virtuous character: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial#Ferron_case

> Jacques Ferron was a Frenchman who was tried and hanged in 1750 for copulation with a jenny (female donkey).[16][17] The trial took place in the commune of Vanves and Ferron was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.[18] In cases such as these it was usual that the animal would also be sentenced to death,[19] but in this case the she-ass was acquitted. The court decided that the animal was a victim and had not participated of her own free will. A document, dated 19 September 1750, was submitted to the court on behalf of the she-ass that attested to the virtuous nature of the animal. Signed by the parish priest and other principal residents of the commune it proclaimed that "they were willing to bear witness that she is in word and deed and in all her habits of life a most honest creature."[16]

In that case, it's a good thing he's around to stop the non-human villains, since presumably the laws about killing and whatnot wouldn't apply to them either.

Not being a person also means you have no rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial#Historical_animal...

> in ecclesiastical courts the animals were routinely provided with lawyers

Kriptonians are not in the terrestrial Tree of life and are therefore not animals (not part of the kingdom Animalia, which makes you an animal). Therefore animal law would not apply to a Kriptonian due to being a non-animal.

That seems like a mighty big claim to be arguing in an ecclesiastical court. You're saying that God didn't create all life (including Kryptonian life) on the fifth and sixth days? We might have to have a trial for heresy.

Edit to add: I believe from the wikipedia article that ecclesiastical courts would assign lawyers to all defendants, regardless of their nature.

Luckily those courts have no jurisdiction now.

And now you're saying the Vatican is not a sovereign state?! You're digging yourself deeper and deeper 29athrowaway. I fear for your soul.

Superman doesn't live in the Vatican. And if he did, because the crime rate is so low, the plot would be so boring that nobody would have ever bought the comic and nobody would know Superman.

The next best thing to the Vatican: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V5bFcDHjasQ/T_EVGAgszFI/AAAAAAAAA...

> ex post facto (laws cannot apply retroactively)

Funny enough, deportation is regarded as a civil matter and thus the ex post facto clause does not apply here. Nothing in the constitution prevents the U.S. from deporting him to Antarctica. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-...

Whether or not Superman is illegal or not, he is at least undocumented. And given the historical context and the authors, it's not a stretch to say that Superman is, in part, the story of a refugee trying to make it in America. Which is something than many people described as "illegal immigrants" identity with.

Things have progressed since the 1930s. At this point Superman would be a stateless person, and there are presumably a variety of international treaties that govern how he can be treated.

I also believe that his alter ego, Clark Kent, is documented as an adopted child of the Kents. It would have been much easier back in the day for infants to be recognized as natural born US citizens regardless of whether or not they were as home births were much more frequent, and IDs such as social security numbers weren't automatically given to infants at birth. Given Superman's discovery as a white appearing infant in Kansas, there would be no reason for the government to presume he was not a natural born citizen. And if they did presume this, they'd have to climb a mountain to legally prove it (not being accused of a crime, good luck getting a court to require a DNA test to show that he is a literal alien).

As for Superman the alter ego? How would anyone prove he isn't a US citizen? They don't even know who he is.

Legally, Superman is undistinguishable from an object until granted personhood, or declared something else, like property or an animal.

He was granted personhood with his adoption papers.

If I adopt a cat from a shelter that doesn't make it a person.

You don't get human adoption papers when buying cats from shelters. It's not even an adoption, per se, when it's a cat, we just call it that. Sam I am.

> it would not make Superman an illegal immigrant

It makes it an "illegal immigrant" for the author who's most likely a liberal (as they call it over there in the United States), after all he/she does write for lithub.com, I don't think there are many fans of rolling coal writing for that magazine.

Put into that perspective whatever earns his/her story liberal points is a plus, and reminding the audience how hard a life "illegal aliens" have in the US ("even Superman would have been treated as a illegal alien!") certainly gains the author those points. Bills need to be paid, ideological positions need to be strengthened, it's a constant and never-ending battle.

What is next then? are migrating birds illegal aliens? monarch butterflies? plankton? furbies? tamagotchi? meteorites?

It never ends.

Comments like this are why I love this site.

> laws cannot apply retroactively

In some jurisdictions they certainly can. Even in places which apparently don't allow this, remember we've all got recent experience of how rapidly existing rules and frameworks can be changed if/when the situation demands[0].

The UK's War Crimes Act 1991[1] is one example, and didn't the current US administration once propose capital gains tax changes with a degree of retroactivity? ("Advisors look for ways to lessen Biden’s proposed retroactive capital gains tax hike"[2]).

[0] ... and maybe even when it doesn't :(

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/13

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/02/advisors-look-for-ways-to-of...

For the US apparently the following is the operating Supreme Court precedent. Ex post facto criminal laws are banned, but not civil laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...

> The Supreme Court has generally rejected ex post facto challenges to laws imposing retroactive tax liability.1 In Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, the Court emphasized that not all retroactive laws are ex post facto, as the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to retroactive criminal laws.2 The majority further opined: “Laws of a retroactive nature, imposing taxes or providing remedies for their assessment and collection, and not impairing vested rights, are not forbidden by the Federal Constitution.” 3

So they can't put you in prison directly. But they can levy a tax that's impossible to pay, and then put you in prison for failing to pay taxes...

No. You'd have to read the full text (fairly short) of the link. Anything involving prison time is effectively a criminal law.

> So they can't [..]

Umm, having seen what happened over the last three years, and (looking further back) what happened after 9/11, my working hypothesis is that if our elected representatives are placed under enough pressure, then if enough of them act in concert they can rewrite any rules they want to.

The UK also used the extremely heavy hammer of retroactive legislation against some benefits recipients who were made to work without pay: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/07/08/retrospective-legis...