Posted: 2/8/2008 7:06:46 PM EDT
|
I have a question about the 13the Amendment for some years now. It reads, in full: 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 I've always wondered about the wording of the first part; does "except as a punishment for crime..." apply to both slavery and involuntary servitude, based strictly on the wording? Or just to involuntary servitude? I've always wondered if this was an unexplored loophole that could technically permit slavery today, if it were imposed as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Obviously, the intent of the Amendment was to prohibit slavery. But that means nothing; the intent of the Second Amendment is also crystal clear, and we're still having to fight for our rights there. For extra credit, feel free to weigh in on whether the 13th Amendment should also prohibit a military draft. My view is that it does; getting stuffed into a uniform and shipped off to fight a war against one's will sure sounds like involuntary servitude to me. I realize the courts have said otherwise, but they say many silly things. |
|
The 'involuntary servitude' clause means MUCH more than slavery. It's been construed to basically mean forcing anyone to do anything against their will. Performance of employment contracts is usually not enforced on this basis. Thus, the exception for punishment for a crime. |
|
Involuntary Servitude From the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto," as read by Jeff Riggenbach. |
And yet, there exists a penalty for failing to registering for Selective Service. Also a penalty for failing to serve if "selected." Funny how forced conscription (the very definition of involuntary service) doesn't rate as "involuntary servitude." |
Take it up with the courts.  I believe that angle was tried, but Congress' power to raise an army trumped it. |
Lets hope they don't use the same argument on the "general welfare" clause. Civilian Forced Labor camps would be a pretty direct analogy. |
I think they also justified it on the idea that there is no way in hell the amendment's drafters could have wanted to constrict congress' power to raise an army. I think forced labor camps are out of the question. |
| The South created, after Reconstruction, a body of laws that allowed them to enslave Black Freedmen for another 50 years. The Peonage Cases became an example of damaging uses of jury nullification as the Federal Government tried to end peonage as an institution. |
Restricting the government from conscripting people does not preclude them from raising an army. It just means they can't use unconstitutional (and unethical, imo) methods for raising it. If they can use any means whatsoever to raise an army, then why can't they use any and all means to promote the general welfare? |
If you need to get a 4 million man army by the end of the year, how are you going to do it? College bonuses? There is no way to do it without a draft. There are plenty of ways to promote the general welfare without using forced labor. And there is absolutely zero historical basis for that being an intention of the clause. |
|
Considering that a good many of the founders called standing armies and outright danger to freedom, I'd say that a 4 million man army would represent their worst nightmare. By what historical basis did the court decide that the power to raise an army included the power to impress citizens into it against their will? |
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? – Daniel Webster That measures of this nature [military conscription] should be debated at all in the councils of a free government is cause of dismay. The question is nothing less than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered and despotism embraced in its worst form. – Daniel Webster |
Nothing I suppose. However, the power to raise an Army is an article of the constitution. "Promote the general welfare" appears in the preamble which I interpret to hold little or no power as a statement unless provided for in the Articles or Amendments to the constitution. The document (Constitution of the United States of America) is a restraint on goverment (now largely igonored) not a license to do as the wish (they do anyway). |
I think that was the intent of the Framers. To disallow a draft, and prevent an army of conscripts enforcing the will of the king upon the people. Didn't work though. |
I should have mentioned I abhorr the idea of a draft. The draft cases, IIRC, were decided back in the early part of the 20th century. It'd be interesting to see how it would play out after the liberalization of the court in the 60s. |
