All men are not persons

[Patriotdiscussions]

So there is my position, after looking at it, I find nothing that states every man is a person according to the law. In fact after reading the law of status it seems that the word person is a status and it seems in law, men have many "persons".

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.



American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."

[Patriotdiscussions]

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.

Processes through which personhood is recognized vary cross-culturally, demonstrating that notions of personhood are not universal. Anthropologist Beth Conklin has shown how personhood is tied to social relations among the Wari' people of Rondônia, Brazil.[3] Bruce Knauft's studies of the Gebusi people of Papua New Guinea depict a context in which individuals become persons incrementally, again through social relations.[4] Likewise, Jane C. Goodale has also examined the construction of personhood in Papua New Guinea.[5]

[Patriotdiscussions]

Ok you know my position. Now you come back with something that states IN LAW that ALL men are persons.

I am excited to see it since I have yet to find it.

[arayder]

Since your Bouvier definition was written before the 13th amendment and since the law at that time recognized slavery as legal and lawful there where, then, men (i.e. slaves) who weren't considered persons.

Do you think the law may have changed since the 1850's?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Since your Bouvier definition was written before the 13th amendment and since the law at that time recognized slavery as legal and lawful there where, then, men (i.e. slaves) who weren't considered persons.

Do you think the law may have changed since the 1850's?

I'm willing to admit the law might of changed, now you show me where the law says TODAY that IN LAW, all, as in EVERY, man is a person.

Btw the book status in common law was written a long time after 1850 friend.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Since your Bouvier definition was written before the 13th amendment and since the law at that time recognized slavery as legal and lawful there where, then, men (i.e. slaves) who weren't considered persons.

Do you think the law may have changed since the 1850's?

Do you understand both words, slave and person were status that men held according to their rights and duties?

[arayder]

Grasshopper, you may start your voyage of discovery by using the current definition of a person in U.S. law.

We all await your report.

[arayder]

Since your Bouvier definition was written before the 13th amendment and since the law at that time recognized slavery as legal and lawful there where, then, men (i.e. slaves) who weren't considered persons.

Do you think the law may have changed since the 1850's?

I'm willing to admit the law might of changed, now you show me where the law says TODAY that IN LAW, all, as in EVERY, man is a person.

Btw the book status in common law was written a long time after 1850 friend.

I modern law, who is not a person?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Since you brought up slaves, here you go

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

Notice how the law keeps describing slavery as a STATUS?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Since your Bouvier definition was written before the 13th amendment and since the law at that time recognized slavery as legal and lawful there where, then, men (i.e. slaves) who weren't considered persons.

Do you think the law may have changed since the 1850's?

I'm willing to admit the law might of changed, now you show me where the law says TODAY that IN LAW, all, as in EVERY, man is a person.

Btw the book status in common law was written a long time after 1850 friend.

I modern law, who is not a person?

Someone without legal personality.

Now, real simple here.

Can you show me ANYTHING in our law that states all men are persons?

Yes or no?

[arayder]

How does the latest edition of Black's Law define a person?

Do you have a copy?

If the answer is "no" are your clients aware you are not up to date?

[Patriotdiscussions]

So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition.

https://books.google.com/books?id=i2gaA ... 0Q6AEwATgK

[Pottapaug1938]

You can't do better than a treatise from 1907?

[Patriotdiscussions]

How does the latest edition of Black's Law define a person?

Do you have a copy?

If the answer is "no" are your clients aware you are not up to date?

Here you go.....

What is PERSON?
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.

http://thelawdictionary.org/person/

Law Dictionary: What is PERSON? definition of PERSON (Black's Law Dictionary)

[Patriotdiscussions]

You can't do better than a treatise from 1907?

You can't do better by posting any treatise from ANYTIME that disputes what I am saying?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Here is a book more recent for you

https://books.google.com/books?id=odUv8 ... IQ6AEwCTgK

[Patriotdiscussions]

Another

https://books.google.com/books?id=SkmjA ... AQ6AEwAjgU




Still waiting for your first link.

[darling]

I find nothing that states every man is a person according to the law.

That's nice for you.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there are circumstances where where minors or people under some kind of mental incapacity are not considered persons.

Feel free to argue that you fit into one of those categories.

[Hyrion]

Since PD has stated he presented his position by presenting a definition, I will assume (as he so wishes and has made clear in previous posts) that:

• PD no longer wants to be known as a person

Of course, he's still a human being and since the Law requires all humans using motorized vehicles to have a valid drivers license, registration, insurance, etc. he's still bound by all that.

PD, a question if I may: since you no longer wish to be known as a person, what would you like to be known as?

[Famspear]

All people are persons.....

....except for "Patriotdiscussions," who is not one of the people......

But if he were one of the people, he would be lucky.....

.............lucky, that is, if he needed some people.........

Because people,
people who need people
arrrrrrrre the luuuuuuuckiest people.....
.....in the world......

.....The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

--Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(1).

Ah, but can "Patriotdiscussions" prove that he is an "individual"? Now, there's the rub!

Tune in next time, when we will see "Patriotdiscussions" agonizing over the question: "What does the word 'the' mean?".