And you cannot ignore the contract just because the draft is inconvenient to you. The Social Contract, like all contracts, is a 2-way deal. You are not free to do as you please, just because you have a pulse. You have responsibilities, as well as rights. You have to give, as well as receive.
The police and courts protect you from being harmed by others; but you have to refrain from harming others. (and serve on juries)
Public schools educate your idiot neighbor’s children; but you have to educate your own children.
The armed forces protect you from foreign invaders; but you have to defend your country as well.
In elections, the politicians agree to listen to your vote; but you agree not to lynch them.
A person who has responsibilities without rights is a slave.
A person who has rights without responsibilities is a parasite.
Yes, but you must register with Selective Service when you are 18 (or 16, whatever) and if the government wanted to institute a draft, they could.
Let’s turn the clock back to 1968 or so. The draft is in effect, you can be sent off to die in Vietnam unless you have flat feet.
How is this not ‘involuntary servitude’?
Just for the record, the 13th Amendment:
The exception makes the rule. Since the exception is ‘in case of being convicted of a crime’, the rule is ‘no involuntary servitude.’ I think The Ryan is dead-on.
If they explicitly made an exception for convicts, they should have explicitly made an exception: “Except the armies shall have the right to conscript blah blah blah and municipalities shall have the right to require certain civic duties of their citizens blah blah blah.”
They didn’t add addtional exceptions, they can’t compel you to do anything. I don’t get how this can be interpreted any other way.
The only loophole is that Congress hsa the right to pass laws to enforce this, so could one say that if they do not pass a law to ban jury duty that it is acceptable? The rather strong language of Section 1 seems to argue otherwise (“Neither…shall exist in the US…”)
Huh? What’s your point? I’m not saying that the contract should be ignored. I’m saying it should be enforced. If the contract says that the government does not have the right to institute a draft, then I have every right to ignore a draft.
Well, I think “original intent” is important. Immediately after the 13th was ratified did any of its sponsers start screaming “hey, they’re still calling people in for jury duty- I thought we just outlawed that!”? The amendment was first proposed in 1864, and reintroduced in Congress again in January 1865- while the Civil War was still ongoing, and the draft was in effect. Did any of the Radical Republicans pushing for the amendment say “You know, boys maybe passing this right now is not such a good idea, what with a war going on and all, and it ending the draft ya know.”?
Parsing the wording of the amendment, and considering nothing else, might lead one to conclude that jury duty and the draft are unconstitutional. Reading it in its historic context shows without the shadow of a reasonable doubt that such civic obligations were not covered by the amendment.
I’m not talking about the US military at one particular moment; I’m talking about the US military in general. What if there were an entire agency of the US government with the duty of imprisoning anyone of a relgion that is deemed dangerous. What if this aganecy had done at multiple points in US history, and currently keeps on file the names and religion of everyone in the US. Would you dismiss it as not important, since it isn’t doing anything right now?
I have already dealt with that objection. We are not dealing with whether the draft violates some general conception of slavery, but whether the draft violates the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment says nothing about ownership. It says that involuntary servitude is not allowed. Involuntary servitude does not require ownership.
The point is, if we are not in a state of anarchy, then we do have to perform involuntary services. Paying taxes. Driving below the speed limit. The Constitution places limits on the services, but does not necessarily eliminate them. In real life, the courts determine where the line gets drawn.
The Constitution says I have the right to bear arms. The courts say that doesn’t include nuclear weapons.
The Constitution says no involuntary servitude. The courts say that doesn’t include draft-dodging.
The Constitution states our ideals. Actual practice is more convoluted.
Um, folks, none of you seems to have bothered even reading the quite relevant post of BobT, from the Supreme Court case ruling on the drafting of military personnel.
If anyone insists, I can dredge up the information regarding other relevant rulings establishing the extent of the 13th Amendment. Or you can look it up here.
Words in the Constitution don’t always mean what they would seem just reading them without understanding why they came to be in the document (a point that ought on occasion be drummed into the heads of judges and justices who insist on ‘plain meaning’ interpretations. Basically put, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occaisions that the 13th Amendment was meant to outlaw slavery, i.e. the ownership of humans, and anything that looked just like slavery, even though it was called something else. Obligations placed on us because of the fact we are citizens or residents of the country aren’t included, never were intended to be included, nor will likely ever be included. They DID, however, you will note, identify at the time of the creation of the amendment that forcing a prison population to do work for free might well be termed reducing a person to slavery. This is because people historically could be turned into slaves as a result of criminal conviction. So an exception was crafted to allow forced labor by prisoners.
In case you still have some doubt about the difference between slavery and, for example, the draft, keep this in mind. A slave is not a person. A slave is a thing, a human without any rights under the Constitution (see, e.g. the Dred Scott decision). A draftee is still a person, with all the rights any citizen has. Strip him or her of those rights, treat the draftee as property, and you would have involuntary servitude, and would likely run afoul of the 13th Amendment.
Why? I can see why it would be important if there were some ambiguity that we needed to resolve. But there is no ambiguity. The draft is involuntary servitude. The 13th amendment outlaws involuntary servitude. Therefore, the draft is illegal. Case closed.
So if something was ignored by previous generations, we should ignore it as well? According to your logic, segregation should be legal.
Yes, it certainly would.
The historic context is irrelevant.
mbh
Just because we are required to do something doesn’t mean that that requirement is constitutional.
Taxes are a separate issue. With taxes, the government is not requiring that you provide a service, but that you share the proceeds from a service you have already decided to perform. And even if taxes were a violation of the 13th amendment, that does nothing to show the draft isn’t.
That’s ridiculous. No one is required to drive below the speed limit.
But that doesn’t mean they’re right.
DSYoungEsq
Yes they do. Just because you, and the rest of the country, have decided to pretend that they don’t, that doesn’t mean they don’t.
Yes they are.
Irrelevant.
Frederick Douglas wasn’t a person? Are really trying to tell me that he was a thing?
You really missed the point of that decision, didn’t you? The Supreme Court did not decide that slave = non-person. The Supreme Court decided that no slaves were citizens, not that no slave could be a citizen.
I am SHOCKED, absolutely SHOCKED to see such ignorance coming from a lawyer. Draftees have all the rights of a citizen? Do they have the right to free speech? Free association? Freedom of religion? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Right to trial by jury? Huh? Last time I checked, civilians have the right to walk off their jobs any time they want without any fear of being executed. Now, which do you dispute: the claim that the draft is servitude, or the claim that it is involuntary? If you accept both, you must accept that it’s involuntary servitude, and therefore illegal.
Well I don’t see why there should be any ambiguity either, but since you seem to have a reading of the amendment which differs from the clear understanding of the vast majority of Americans I suppose, to that extent, there is some ambiguity.
No, it is not the same. I said the original intent of those proposing the amendment was what was important, not how subsequent generations chose to intrepret it. The fact that the Supreme Court allowed state-mandated segregation in Plessy vs. Ferguson does not change the fact that the Radical Republicans who passed the 14th and 15th amendments a generation earlier intended something different- and that is why the Supreme Court later reversed itself.
And if we’re going to play the “according to your logic” game: the 1st amendment is clear and unambiguous “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Pretty clear and unambiguous, right? Therefore, according to your logic, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law funding government hospitals which perform tracheotomies. The fact that the writers of the amendment intended no such thing is irrelevant by your principles. And if you want to complain that it is a ludicrous example, I can assure you that there are a great many people who would consider a comparison between slavery/involuntary servitude on the one hand, and jury duty or mandatory school attendance, on the other, just as ludicrous.
To you it might be. Care to tell the rest of us why it should be irrelevant?
In response to your jerkish comment “what part didn’t you understand:”
I understood very well that you have exactly zero conception of why a person in the United States, today, joins the military. It most assuredly is not because “it’s the only job” he can get. Or are you completely unfamiliar with the many recruiting campaigns going on? It’s a choice. You just don’t like to recognize that FACT because, IMHO, it destroys your so-called argument.
You are also conveniently ignoring the FACT that compulsory education is provided to force people to NOT EXPLOIT children as in the sweat-shops of old. You see, back then (and that wasn’t so long ago, either), the little tykes had to work and that was pretty damn close to slavery.
Perchance you could do us a favour here and post your list of words and YOUR definitions, seeing as how you don’t want to use any definition that shows how inance your stance is.
Someone in the military is not necessarily going to be executed for walking off the job. The death penalty is a penalty in the military, but it’s for desertion and that’s only after you’ve sworn an oath that you wouldn’t do such things.
If you were drafted into the military and you didn’t want to serve, you can simply refuse to be inducted. The government would then prosecute you and most likely imprison you. Many people have done this in America’s history, notably Quakers, and their sacrifices should be duly noted.
To 19th Century lawyers, the terms “slavery” and “servitude” referred to specific practices in the civilian economy. Modern civil-rights advocates use the terms to cover a much broader range of conditions. This creates ambiguity.
Under the 13th Amendment, you cannot contract your children as indentured servants. This does not exempt you from the obligation to educate them.
Under the 13th Amendment, you cannot buy or sell human beings as chattel slaves. This does not exempt you from the obligation to serve in the military in time of crisis.
Under the 13th Amendment, the government has to compensate people who serve in the military or on juries. This does not exempt them from their obligation to serve.
Oh, and one minor nitpick:
Maybe the cops in your town don’t enforce the traffic laws, but I can assure you that that’s not the case in the rest of the country.
The Amendments give you many civil rights. None of them is absolute.
Freedom of Speech does not protect slander or fraud.
Freedom of the Press does not protect libel or false advertising.
Freedom of Religion does not protect human sacrifice.
The Right to Bear Arms does not allow you to keep a nuke in your car.
For every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there is an exception, a special case, or a practical limit to the freedom involved. There are always ambiguities.
Oh, wow, the “everyone says you’re wrong, so you must be wrong” argument. Truly, I have underestimated your debating skills. :rolleyes:. But if you’re so interested in what other people say, just how many people responding to this thread have disputed what the plain meaning is? Even people that disagree with me agree with my plain reading. You yourself said:
DSYoungEsq said:
Which implies that he believes that the plain reading outlaws the draft.
So it is your position that, immediately after the Civil War, segregation was universally regarded as constitutional, and general opinion managed to completely flip in the next 30 years? Which is a better indication of original intent: the USSC 1898 interpretation, or the USSC 1954 interpretation?
I hardly think that the phrase “abridging the freedom of speech” is unambiguous.
I take it you are referring to voluntary tracheotomies. Such a law would not abridge freedom of speech, and therefore would not be unconstitutional.
The burden isn’t on me to prove that it is irrelevant. The burden is on you to prove that it is relevant.
BobT
It’s still a significant right that civilians have that soldiers don’t.
An oath made under duress.
mbh
Cite?
That is irrelevant, since there is no traffic law requiring anyone to drive below the speed limit. If you do not believe that statement, I suggest you reread it carefully. From your responses, it seems that you are making an assumption that has no basis in reality.
That does not follow. If, for instance, the freedom of speech does not protect slander or fraud, then the criminalization of slander or fraud is not an exception, special case, or practical limitation. The first amendment says that the freedom of speech shall not be infringed. It does not say that people shall be free to say anything they want. There is a big difference. The statement “The freedom of speech shall not be infringed” assumes that there already exists a concept of freedom of speech, and that the constitution inherits the properties of that freedom. Since “freedom of speech” is ambiguous, the first amendment is ambiguous. The 13th amendment does not say “The freedom of labor shall not be infringed”. If it did, you would have a point, since such a statement would be ambiguous. But since “involuntary labor” is not ambiguous, the 13th amendment is not either.
Gardarene, Monty:
Your posts are completely inappropriate to this forum. This thread is for discussion of the 13th amendment. If you wish to insult me, the proper forum is the Pit.
It is no such argument. The existence of a difference in interpretation establishes that the meaning is ambiguous. The fact that your interpretation is the minority one of course does not mean it is wrong. However, IMHO, it does mean that if you wish to change the majority’s interpretation the burden is on you to convince them with reasoned arguments, not dogmatic pronouncements.
But the core issue, is whether a plain reading, with no consideration of context or intent, is the proper way to interpret Constitutional amendments. You seem to just posit this as an axiom. I do not accept it as axiomatic. The fact that those who actually proposed and passed the amendment quite clearly did not intend for it to prohibit a draft or jury duty is more telling in my view.
It is my position, and I believe the historic record supports it, that those who proposed and passed the 14th and 15th amendments, the radical Republicans, did intend for racial segregation to be unconstitutional. (Certainly this wasn’t univerally approved of, but the defeated Southerners and the northern democratic minority could not stop passage.) As any good history of the Reconstruction era will show, there certainly was a flip-flop on racial issues between the late 1860s and the 1890s. I would be quite surprised if there were many reputable historians who felt that the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision was closer to the original intent of the 14th amendment sponsors than the Brown vs. the Board of Ed. decision.
quote:
And if we’re going to play the “according to your logic” game: the 1st amendment is clear and unambiguous “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”.
I hardly think that the phrase “abridging the freedom of speech” is unambiguous.
Seems to me that if the government pays somone to cut into your vocal tract and you lose your speaking ability then your freedom of speech has been quite seriously abridged. Of course that’s only a problem if one is relying on a clear reading without considering context. IRL, you, I and everybody else does consider context in interpreting this, and so rightly regards the “clear reading” as absurd.
Since you are the one putting forth the proposition which contradicts the clear original intent, the consistent interpretation of the courts, and standard constitutional theory while trying to convince the majority that they are in error- I submit that the burden of proof is indeed upon you.
The ryan
The 1st Amendment does not say “freedom of speech shall not be infringed, except in cases of slander or fraud”. It says, “freedom of speech shall not be infringed”. The amendment states an unambiguous ideal. In the real world, however, slander and fraud are exceptions to that ideal.
If you think “involuntary labor” is completely unambiguous, I suggest that you re-read the debate between anynrandlover and **C K Dexter Haven ** and others, regarding the definition of “slavery”. Similar arguments apply on both sides.
