So, how does our system handle crimes committed during court? Can the judge use their inherent power to jail someone for contempt? Or does the judge need to testify in another court when the new crime is prosecuted? Or, both?
In this particular case I believe the judge mearly has to take into account his behavior in the courtroom while determing his sentence. I’m thinking its not going to work out too well for him.
He can also be separately charged for offenses committed in court. It would be assigned to a different judge, obviously, as the original judge might be called as a witness.
In any event, a Very Bad Idea.
So in Colorado today they’re saying the 13th Amendment disallows Trump from appearing on next year’s presidential ballots, in relation to uhmm insurrection. I know this has been used to block post Civil War candidates but I think the appeals process will take them past the elections.
Just to be clear, the trial is starting today. Nothing has been decided yet. (And it’s the 14rh Amendment.)
While as mentioned, its the 14th amendment that they are discussing, the 13th amendment does have something relavant to Trump’s case:
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
So he can be enslaved. All hail the 13th amendment!
The Christian thing to do would be to give him community service involving washing the feet of the poor. 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 3 years.
and he has to use his hair to dry the feet?
Ewww. Washing the feet is supposed to be an act of solace and comfort for the poor!
My favorite exchange from the movie Thor: Ragnarok.
In all honesty, making a prisoner work is literally a “prisoner with a job” and is a form of involuntary servitude, in other words, slavery. But as a condition of incarceration it is explicitly allowed in the constitution.
I’ve posted before on this board about the minimum security prison that Martha Stuart served time in, and how if Trump ever went to prison it would probably be the sort of place he’d be in. The people there are given jobs to do while serving time. Again, that’s allowed per your cite.
I wonder what kind of ironic prison jobs could be assigned to the Jan 6 convicts.
Too bad we don’t need scribes to copy the constitution. Again, and again, and again …
Prison Librarian? They could start with organizing the history section. Maybe some of the info will rub off, like osmosis.
I dunno, have you ever humiliated a really idiotic former President by running your toes through their hair? I think I might enjoy that.
“My name is Osmosis, king of kings!
Rub up against my works, ye ignorant,
And be schooled!”
Hmmm… he is pretty well qualified. He has lots of experience at storing boxes full of documents. 
We don’t talk about him anymore.
No points for guessing why there might be a loophole to allow slavery to continue…
If you want to be pedantic, “slavery” refers to the buying, selling, and ownership of people, which is why “involuntary servitude” is mentioned separately. And I assume that the phrase you are looking for is, “Chain Gang.”
A pretty good documentary on that point: 13th (film) - Wikipedia
In The Second Founding, Eric Foner’s analysis of the legislative history and effect of the Reconstruction Amendments, he looks at the actions and writings, both contemporary and afterwards, of the drafters of the 13th through 15th Amendments.
Based on this, he specifically discounts any attempt to insert a loophole in the 13th Amendment on the part of the congressmen drafting it. The reason given to insert the clause “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” was simply because for certain offenses, largely offenses against military discipline, the customary punishment of the day was Imprisonment at forced hard labor - making small rocks out of large ones in the Dry Tortugas, for instance.
The subsequent overcriminalization of certain offenses, their selective enforcement, and the resultant overpolicing of blacks (as noted in 13th, hat tip to @Elendil_s_Heir) was an unforeseen though perhaps all too predictable outcome of the inclusion of that clause. The drafters were shortsighted but not malicious.