The sentence you gave is not a grammatically correct sentence. Therefore, no plain reading analysis can be done, and the speaker’s intent therefore comes into play.
The charge of obstructing justice specifically requires that one have the intent to obstruct justice.
Let’s look at the context of the quote again:
Emphasis mine.
You are clearly stating that I have not proved what the meaning is, when in fact I have presented a completely valid inductive proof. You did not say that I had failed to prove that the meaning is not important, so don’t pretend you did.
And to imply that I have so implied is hardly a legitimite debating tactic. To continue my pi analogy, you are asking me to prove that geometical proofs are more importatnt han what the Bible says. How can I prove that?
I though that there was a general consensus that if two or more people agree to something, they are bound by it even if it turns out to not be what they expected.
Okay, it looks doubtful that we’re going agree on whether the draft is unconstitutional. So let me see if can at least agree on something. My view on contracts is that whatever is finally written down is the contract, and everyone is bound by what is written down. From your posts, I infer that you believe that what is written down merely represents the contract, and if this representation is imperfect, it is the contract and not what is written down that is binding. Is this your view? And do you agree that while under your view, the draft is constitutional, under mine it is not?
You have a valid point regarding military service, although the courts disagree. But in stretching that point to include compulsory school attendence and jury duty, I must ask a question.
Do you believe that compulsory school attendence and jury duty are wrong? If so, what remedy would you suggest?
So long as The Ryan continues to assert that which is not as that which is, this shall continue.
The draft, conscription, and military SERVICE in the United States are not a trade for any rights nor are they a ticket to any special rights. Members of the US military continue to enjoy their rights as citizens, except for the foreign nationals who have enlisted. These last enjoy the same rights they would had they remained un-enlisted resident aliens. There is also a small group of “Non-immigrant Aliens” (NIA), enlisted under the provisions of the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and the Philippines, who do not fall into either of the foregoing two categories; however, they can easily become resident aliens. You are correct that it is not slavery. Members of the millitary enjoy the right of trial by jury, right of appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court; they enjoy the right of competitive promotion, pay for their labour, and they also enjoy the right to petition for breach of contract. It has happened and continues to happen that individual servicemembers are released from their service contract due to a breach by the military.
No, members of the military do not abandon their rights.
Covered above.
I’m in agreement with you that military service is not slavery. However, compulsory service is compulsory…by definiton. The fact remains that it is not slavery…no matter how The Ryan wants to stretch the definitions of words (the bit above about “placement in the dictionary” was good for quite a long laugh!).
IIRC, the registration requirement only applies to males aged 18 or older who have not served in the military already. As I performed 20 years of voluntary service, I’m not required to register for the draft.
Well, if you mean that one accepts both your implied premise that constitutional provisions are to be interpreted as if they were contracts* and your view re how contracts should be interpreted- yes I would agree that the draft should be considered unconstitutional. I would also feel that the 13th amendment made conscription unconstitutional if it had been enacted during a time when there was no draft, and no other evidence was available showing what its authors and ratifiers meant it to cover.
*IANAL. For all I know, contract law may agree with your view and not mine- I merely stated MHO on what it should be. So merely showing you are correct in that regard would not establish your point, unless you also demonstrate that contract law is applicable to constitutional interpretation.
I don’t think that the government should tell parents how to raise their children. If, in a specific situation, there is demonstrable harm in a child staying home from school, to the child or others, then I would support a requirement that the child go to school. However, a blanket statement that all children must go to school seems wrong to me.
As for jury duty, that is a tough question. I believe that everyone has a right to not serve jury duty, but I also believe that everyone has a right to a jury trial. I’m not sure how to resolve this conflict of rights.
As far as jury duty goes I don’t like it at all. If I could create a world (ha-ha) all judges would decide rulings, period. And they, as well, would not be based on other rulings (case law) elsewhere. Each court case, IMO, is ubnique and should be treated as such.
All Judges would be required to
have been a lawyer for some amount of time, or cases handled, or both.
require a degree in philosophy as well
require a degree in psychology
sociology wouldn’t hurt, but I’m asking a bit much for anyone.
Trial by jury. Sheesh. I’d hate to think my life was on the line in a lottery of people.
You know, Ryan, I’m curious as to exactly how you’re drawing the distinction between citizenship obligations that you class as “involuntary servitude” and hence unconstitutional, and citizenship obligations that you think are okay. Your unstated criterion seems to be “If you hafta get up every morning and obey the orders of somebody you didn’t volunteer to work for, it’s involuntary servitude. If, on the other hand, you’re just forced to submit to authority on a random, short-term basis (such as taking orders from cops directing traffic at a construction site, for example), it’s okay.”
Now other posters have suggested various criteria that seem to me much more solid and consistent grounds for identifying what’s involuntary servitude and what’s not. E.g., does the party involved still retain the rights of a citizen? Is the party involved considered a piece of property rather than a human being? Is the obligation dependent upon the arbitrary desires of an owner, or is it a standard civic duty incurred for the sake of a widely supported societal good (as in mandatory education and jury duty) or national emergency (as in the military draft)?
But you reject these criteria and continue to insist that some limited-term, limited-scope, legally mandated duties of citizenship count as “slavery” while other limited-term, limited-scope, legally mandated duties of citizenship do not. So what’s the cutoff you’re using? How limited does the term or the scope of the obligation have to be for you to consider it free from the taint of slavery? And what’s your argument for drawing the line in that place and no other?
For example:
Is it involuntary servitude to be imprisoned without bail pending trial? Why or why not?
Is it involuntary servitude to be forced to appear as a subpoenaed witness at another person’s trial? Why or why not?
Is it involuntary servitude to be subjected to a forced evacuation in case of a fire or flood or other disaster? Why or why not?
I think, in short, that your criterion is pretty arbitrary. As citizens under the rule of law, there are a number of things that we just have to do when we’re told to, whether or not we did anything wrong or deserve to have our freedom restricted. You seem to have simply picked out the three things in that category of stuff we have to do (school, conscription, jury duty) that restrict time and independence the most for the greatest number of people, and labeled them “involuntary servitude” and hence illegitimate. That seems to me like a pretty subjective distinction.
Kimstu, are you missing the whole conversation? What we’re saying (or at least I’m saying, and Ryan seems to agree from what I’ve read) is that it is fucking slavery straight out in fact. What we call it, the “rights” granted (not removed) from us, are irrelevant when the end is the same. If you are told what to do, and you are provided for(and threatened) so that you may continue to do this without revolt, you are a slave.
Or perhaps you feel slavery is practiced some other way I’m not aware of?
If you are going to define slavery that broadly, then any social arrangement will be considered slavery. Unless you want to live alone in the wilderness like the Unabomber, you have to control your behavior.
In exchange for the benefits of living in a group, you have obligations to restrict some of your behaviors for the group’s benefit. In most societies, this includes an obligation to defend the group against foreign threats. In any society more complex than the stone age, this means military service in time of emergency.
Just because you don’t have to go through INS to become a citizen, does not mean that citizenship is free of obligations. The 14th Amendment grants you all of the privileges of citizenship. The 14th Amendment also saddles you with all of the duties of citizenship. None of this is compulsory: when you become an adult, you become free to emigrate. But if you choose to stay, you are shouldering the burdens, as well as enjoying the benefits.
Really?? If you compare the civil rights that a member of the military enjoys to that of civilian life, it doesn’t really come close. An example is the prohibition against speaking against the President.
I’d certainly call it that, yes!!!
Well, for me to not follow that direction would more than likely cause injury to others, so yes. I fail to see the relevance between a cop stalling me for a couple minutes and the government stealing my life from me and sending me off to be cannon fodder.
As stated before, military personnel certainly do not retain the full rights of civilians.
I’d call being dragged off to die like cattle being treated like a piece of property.
Ohhh…so the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual??? Sounds quite fascistic, if you ask me. The flag-waving tends to make me rather sick. I have no duties to any other man…if I enter into a voluntary compact with them, so be it.
It’s very limited and simple, really…if it’s voluntary, then it’s free from the taint of slavery!
Well, considering that the question of bail has been answered and there is a reasonable suspicion that bail would be not in the best interest, I wouldn’t call it involuntary servitude.
Perhaps not involuntary servitude but it’s a violation of that individual’s rights…that’s potentially putting one’s self in danger.
[QUOTE]
Is it involuntary servitude to be subjected to a forced evacuation in case of a fire or flood or other disaster? Why or why not?
Another violation of individual rights…if someone wishes to stay in a situation like that, they accept the consequences.
Seig heil, mein comrade! Nazi salute We certainly want the people to serve the state properly, don’t we???
John Galt, my friend…I have returned :)…theryan…any enemy of theirs is a friend of mine
Well, when I started this thread, I was honestly wondering what sort of reasons people had for not thinking that the 13th amendment was being violated. It seemed like such a simple issue, and I honestly thought that we could reach a conclusion quickly and politely. However, I am forced to conclude that the majority of people are more interested in convincing me that I’m wrong than in actually debating the issue. My patience is exhausted, and I am therefore starting a pit thread for those that are uncapable of honest debate.
1st: One very well could liken the restriction on officers not speaking out against the President or the governor of a State or Territory in which they are serving or are present to the restriction against shouting “Fire!” in a theater.
2nd: Members of the military are not “dragged off like cattle to die.” The idea of a trained and disciplined military is to make it so that they aren’t the ones who die when they defend the country.
3rd: Given your comment above about taking orders from someone you didn’t volunteer to work for, do you routinely quit your job when a new boss appears on the scene? If not, you’re blowing smoke.
4th: You are still mistaken in your assertion that military personnel abandon their rights. In actuality, what they do is voluntarily incur obligations. Get that? “Obligations.” It’s a word found in many a dictionary. Use one. Learn it. It’s a very cool word in the right circumstances.
5th: Military personnel and school children, to use The Ryan’s example, ARE NOT property. Anyway, all the military members and all the teachers are subject to certain laws. This includes laws regulating the way the senior members of the miltiary treat the junior members, most notably to guarantee their rights as delineated in the Constitution (the document, not the ship) and expanded in the UCMJ, and what additional safeguards teachers must take to ensure the safety and rights of their charges are protected.
6th: Since you admit that something being voluntary makes it “free from the taint of slavery,” why do you have a problem with military or even school? As it has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the parent can very easily choose to school the child elsewhere, not in the “regular” public school.
7th: Your comments about compelled witness are specious.
8th: Your allusion to Hitler was atrocious and in very bad taste. In this land, the State IS the people.
The Ryan: You are the one here to whom it has been pointed out that you have been rude in this thread.
Lastly: IIRC, when a child is born in a hospital, the mother leaves the hospital with the child. How, in your odd view, does that not constitute slavery? After all, the child didn’t volunteer to be taken anywhere, didn’t volunteer to be told how to behave by the mother. Let’s be honest here. Ryan and a friend or two turned this thread into a troll straight away.
Here is the answer to your argument right here, The Ryan. slander and fraud are not included in freedom of speech because future generations looking back realized that the framers of the First Amendment did not intend to include slander and fraud within freedom of speech. The language used by the framers would protect slander and fraud. However, at the time the framers drafted the first amendment, slander and fraud were criminal offenses, and remained so after the ratification of the amendment. Hence we now conclude that they aren’t protected, and infer the phrase “except for fraud and slander” in our reading of the Amendment.
Similarly, at the time the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment sat down to do their work, there was a draft going on in this country. This was just at the end of the Civil War and, IIRC, the draft was not wound down until the end of 1865. Hence, before and after the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the draft was considered legal and constitutional by the people who wrote the amendment. Hence we now conclude that the framers did not include the draft within their definition of involuntary servitude (which I would otherwise agree with you should be included).
It is so obvious to me that I can’t even believe this thread is still going on.
Draft isn’t slavery because we didn’t legally define it that way. It doesn’t matter if it is slavery in practice, only in defenition.
Rugby, we meet in some strange threads!
As far as the poster who told me I was defining slavery too broadly, perhaps we can come to a better definition in this very thread. We might espouse the practice of owning another individual and what that entails in fact and how it differs from mere “obligation.” At what point does obligation turn into slavery? How do we draw that line? Slaves were not choiceless there were many things they could choose to do on a daily basis. In fact, they could even choose, as the “anti-slavery” ones here, to voluntarily shrug our citizenship…or to be more clear, they could flee their owners and accept the responsibility for their action. If we want to define slavery that way we’ve made it too narrow, and no one is a slave. How very fun!
Having been a member of the Military they do, in almost every way, retain their “rights” but are subject to more strict regulation. Like a slave. Oh, one can volunteer to enter the army. And one can volunteer (at least should be able to in theory) enter any other form of obligation to another individual/individuals/legal entity. It might even be clear during the assumption of said obligations that there is no easy way to back out of them…no non-penalty form of contract breach.
But to drag a man involuntarily to fight a war he didn’t want to fight and be subject to more strict regulation is so obviously slavery that I can’t believe we can’t just admit it. How else should we define slavery?
Rugby, it must be—blank out.
I take it what you meant to say is “The language used by the framers would protect slander and fraud, if it weren’t for the fact that slander and fraud are not part of what the framers meant by ‘the freedom of speech’”.
I disagree. I believe that the proper inference is that the phrase “freedom of speech” simply does not include slander or fraud, and therefore no exception need be made.
But there is a big difference. “Freedom of speech” is a vague phrase, and therefore we must turn to the context to determine what it means. “Involuntary servitude”, however, is self-explanatory. There is no need to look at the context to see what it means. Can you seriously tell me that you can look at the draft, and not see involuntary servitude?
Monty, what part of “personal insults belong in the Pit” have you been unable to comprehend? Or do you just think that following the rules of this board is as unimportant as following the rules of the constitution?
I know quite well what I utter, thank you very much.
Ve must serve ze Fuhrer witzout question!!!
Well, explain to me how conscriptees fit into a “trained and disciplined military”.
The difference is that ** I have the right to do so if I so choose **. Who’s really the one blowing smoke?
Once again, how do conscriptees voluntarily take upon these obligations? Ohh…that’s right…** they don’t **!!!
Well, senior military personnel and teachers are voluntarily there, so they chose those burdens. Students and draftees are NOT.
[QUOTE]
6th: Since you admit that something being voluntary makes it “free from the taint of slavery,” why do you have a problem with military or even school? As it has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the parent can very easily choose to school the child elsewhere, not in the “regular” public school.
[QUOTE]
I have no problems with any voluntary process. However, as I have pointed out, conscription is NOT voluntary!!! As for schools, how many people can realistically afford to send their children to private schools? With taxes and school taxes (which must be paid regardless of where the child attends…regardless of whether you even have a child for that matter…certainly no voluntary choice there!), that certainly saps money from individuals. Well, of course there’s vouchers , but the public school mafia has been the most vociferous in REMOVING that choice from parents. Please don’t try to say that public schools are voluntary!!
Perhaps, but any more so than gun control (for an example) arguments?
Is it in bad taste or does it hit a little closer to the mark than you would like??? I imagine fascists would have said that the state is the people as well!!! (Personally, there IS no “people” or any other collectivist bullshit term. There are only individuals with individual rights to be protected!!!)
Yes…you should leave it to THEM to be rude and insulting!!! How dare you!!!
You have got to be kidding me! Is THIS how far you are stretching?? I could probably come up with some decidedly specuous abstractions myself, but I generally tend to wish to stick to REALITY! Blank-out indeed ARL
I don’t know why I’m even justifying this with an answer but…the baby is not a rational being and doesn’t have the mental faculties yet to make a decision…all right?? (Incidentally, stick the kid in public schools and he’ll never develop them at all!)
We do indeed ;)…tried to avoid getting involved in political discussions lest my blood pressure shoot through the roof…but well, so much idiocy that I couldn’t take it anymore!!!
What is obvious to you is not necessarily enforcible to a court of law. A number of European and Latin American countries outlawed slavery, only to replace it with serfdom, debt peonage, or some other abuse of the capitalist system. (It happened here, too. Ask a farmer about “sharecropping”, or a coal miner about “the company store”, or a salesman about “independent contractors”.) Slavery, serfdom, and peonage may have similar practical effects, but they have different legal nuances, so outlawing one may not affect another. The phrase “involuntary servitude” was an attempt to prevent nominally free citizens from being trapped by a plutocrat with a sharp lawyer.
Slaves are chattel. They have no legal rights, and are not citizens. If a draftee does not want to fight, he is free to petition his government officials, and to vote for pacifist candidates in the next election.
The Ryan:
What’s vague about it? What part of “freedom” or “speech” is so difficult to comprehend?
Self-explanatory to a semantics professor, perhaps, but not necessarily self-explanatory to a lawyer or a court. “Servitude” can describe a broad range of conditions, from slavery, to serfdom, to peonage, to contractual obligations, to social expectations. “Involuntary servitude” is subject to just as many semantic quibbles as “freedom of speech”.
