Here it is, it cites Marsh also. I do not know if it was appealed and sustained, reversed, etc, but, as you see, the case law discusses private actor entwinement.
Again, a private individual keeping slaves would be in violation of the Constitution (as well as various federal and state statutes, most likely). The Thirteenth Amendment’s proscription is not limited to state actors.
You’re talking about Judge Dredd, aren’t you?
I googled “Charged with violating civil rights”, and got hits mainly of law enforcement not following procedure (warrants, etc).
However, I also got much older stuff like this:
Are arson or attempted murder not included under any Federal Statutes?
It was my impression that the Feds can go after a civilian (not Fed or State employee) who perpetrates a racially motivated crime using the catch-all term “violating civil rights”. Since our “rights” are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it implies that these charges are based on the Constitution, not on legislation. (Especially if plain old anti-murder statutes aren’t enacted on the Federal level.)
Did I misunderstand the whole concept based on a catch phrase?
I think so. They are accused of violating the Civil Rights Act and subsequent similar legislation, not constitutional rights per se.
Murder is generally a state crime, the Federal government isn’t involved. If it takes place on Federal land, or to a Federal employee while performing his or duties, or involves crossing state lines, the Federal gov’t may be involved. But garden variety murders are not Federal crimes.
mlees, they were probably charged under the Hate crime law, 245;
OK, thanks! I see I’ve been making too many assumptions.
This is me.
This is me learning something new today.
Urgh. This is the answer, but it hurts my brain to have to think about it again. State action doctrine is such a giant clusterfuck. Thank god it’ll (almost certainly) never come up in my practice.
From my Ex Rel case link;
{¶15} In short, “state action may be found if, though only if, there is such
a ‘close nexus between the State and the challenged action’ that seemingly private
behavior ‘may fairly be treated as that of the State itself.’ “ Id. at 295, 121 S.Ct.
924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807, quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co. (1974), 419 U.S.
345, 351, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477.
Hey it is the SC’s fault for incorporating the 1st AM. 
They should have let Barron v. Baltimore alone! (Not really)!
My impression was that the traditional view, noted in this paper for instance, is the US Constitution applies only to governmental bodies. To use terminology from the European Union, it has “vertical effect” but not “horizontal effect” - ie. it can be enforced by private citizens against their government, but not against each other.
Is that how the Thirteenth Amendment works?
Is that not binding against private citizens?
You can study these Annotations and see what you come up with.
Strictly speaking, there really isn’t case law interpreting the point. At this point, probably every US jurisdiction has statutes punishing slavery, so any criminal actions would be statutory in nature and would not have to reach the constitutional provision.
What if there were no such statutes, and my neighbor was holding me in bondage? Could I successfully sue in federal court for an injunction barring him from doing so, based solely on the 13th A? I think the answer is patently yes, but I may be missing something. If the folks in this thread who are saying that a private citizen cannot violate any provision of the Constitution have a different view, I’d be interested to hear it.
In very broad terms, the greatest purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the government can do to its citizens. That’s what made it such a groundbreaking document . . . not a collection of laws, but of the limits of laws. In that sense, an individual cannot violate it. Of course it’s occasionally been violated by its own amendments, as in Prohibition, which limited the rights of the citizens, not the government. The same would be true of an anti-same-sex marriage amendment. So no, an individual citizen cannot cause the government to violate the rights of its citizens.
Here’s the things a private citizen can do if he or she wants to commit an unconstitutional act.
- Infringe somebody’s rights to bear arms.
- Hold somebody in involuntary servitude.
- Question the public debt.
I agree. The Constitution is Law. And it says slavery and involuntary servitude is not allowed. The only role Congress has is that it can enact laws to enforce this - but no law is necessary to establish this because it’s already been established in the Constitution.
So let’s say, in theory, that Congress took no action on this issue and never enacted any laws against slavery or involuntary servitude. You could still take your neighbour to court and win your freedom because involuntary servitude is illegal. But winning your freedom would be all you could do - your neighbour would not be liable to any criminal penalty because Congress never enacted any penalty for violating this amendment.
Actually, the purpose of the Constitution was to establish “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” to borrow Lincoln’s memorable phrase, and to distribute the powers of government between a moderately strong central government, the states which had come together to create it, and those things they wanted neither level of government to be able to do. Onlty secondarily was the protection of rights a goal of the Constitution.
It is that which makes Amendment 1 down here in Tarheelistan so ironic.: we were the 12th state tp ratify the Constitution, behind everyone but contrarian Rhode Island. Why? Because we refused to ratify it without a Bill of Rights.
Nice point!
What you could do might violate both, but you’d (could) only be arrested for violating the US Code (assuming we’re talking feds). If it’s not enacted US law, nothing for the FBI/DOJ/ect. to enforce.
So, it could be unconstitutional, but not necessarily against “the law” (but never vice-versa…for long…hopefully).
This is spot on in effect tough dead wrong in theory. “The law” is first and foremost the Constitution, then statutes, regulations, treaties, and state cpnstitutions which confoirm to it, and state statutes and regulations, local ordinances, etc., which conform to it and them. So a private act which managed to directly violate the Constution would emphatically be “against the law.”
However, the successful pressing of any court case by plaintiff presupposes a remedy – a monetary judgment or injunction at civil law, a penalty/sentence at criminal law. And the Constitution does not spell these out. Therefore. in the absence of statute, there is no penalty accruing; it is like violating the Flag Code – standards which may be broken but no penalty affixed for their being broken.