Yes. And it’s clearly prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Next question?
Ok. Is jury service slavery?
Well, like I said earlier - if you want to define slavery so widely, that’s fine, but then you can’t rely on the word “slavery” to make the case that a policy is bad.
I think we can all agree that owning another human being as property is bad and wrong inherently. If you make that claim, no one will argue. If you claim that something equivalent to slavery of that sort is inherently wrong, again, no one will argue.
But if you widen the definition of slavery to include the draft, or jury duty, or prisoners working, or me having to do my job because without money I’d eventually starve - then something being slavery does not automatically mean it is morally repugnant. I don’t think that jury duty or a draft are inherently morally repugnant.
The 13th amendment doesn’t specifically exclude it, but the right to a trial by jury is well-enshrined elsewhere, so I think it can be assumed that it does not count.
Conscription is a little more ambiguous. The US Constitution does give the government the right to raise armies, and that’s been considered to give them the power of conscription, though it is not stated as clearly as with juries.
Anyway, the argument is silly. Not all slavery is equal, and it’s a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy to use a broad definition of slavery that includes jury duty but then pretend that because we’ve called it slavery it’s all equivalent to chattel slavery.
Agreed 100%. Juries are expressly mentioned in the Constitution. The closest power to a draft in the original Constitution is the power to call the militia into federal service, when the militia by common law consisted of all able-bodied men between certain ages I don’t recall now.
I’m still curious of Chronos’s answer.
The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary service. The draft is involuntary, and it’s service. Yes, it’s paid, but that’s completely irrelevant: Unpaid but voluntary service is just fine, and paid but involuntary service isn’t.
So as jury service is involuntary but paid, it runs afoul of the 13th Amendment?
Service is not be the same as servitude, the latter being the word in the amendment.
Servitude implies to me that you have to do what you are told. Juries have to make a big decision that is up to them, so I do not see that service as servitude. And I suspect SCOTUS would agree.
As for military service, note that it is not called servitude.
Yeah, and also ignoring that the structural problems were there before the promenade was put in place.
Anyway, glad about this result, at least. Thanks for that.
Yes, it “works” as a lottery that taxes everyone on rent and gives the proceeds to a select few. All while damaging the market by restricting mobility and lowering the incentive to build.
To lower rent/home prices, you must Build. More. Housing. It is as simple as that. Even Kamala knew that much.
Another aspect of Prop 6…
Nowhere can I find information about whether California prisons actually use mandatory labor. What I’ve always heard is that the reality is the exact opposite–work (even for a pittance) is used as a reward, not a punishment.
I did vote for 6 since it seemed like the right thing and costs nothing, but it does actually matter whether this is posturing or something that fixes a legitimate problem.
Remember, I am talking “mild” San Jose style Rent control, where the President of the Tri-county Landlord group said “All it does is stop landlords from doing stupid things”. For example, during the dot com boom, some landlords wanted to double their rants- and were talked donw by having fellow landlords explain- “you are gonna lose long term great tenants with that , and get in new unknown tenants who are prospering due to a book- and who will all be looking to buy- if the boom holds. Think twice. Use this to get rid of bad tenants, and not the good, stable ones.” It also only affected a small amount of rental properties.
This is true afaik - in California. Very much different in other states. If this was a federal law, i’d back it. Here in CA? Wont make much difference.
They even made a rather unrealistic TV show called “Fire Country” about CA having trusted inmates volunteer to help fight fires. That job is highly in demand among the inmates, despite the fact it is hard, hot, and even dangerous.
This is why I didnt vote on it- in principle, the idea is good, but in CA- not so much.
I suppose one risk of the proposition is that it could have made voluntary labor more difficult. Prisons would undoubtedly face lawsuits from people saying they were coerced, that it wasn’t really voluntary at all, etc. And that could very well break a system that is, for the most part, beneficial to both inmates and the state.