Constitutional question: code-words for slaves

Factual Questions
1

The Constitution refers to slaves and slavery but only uses the word slavery once, in the Thirteenth Amendment.

Article 1 Section 2 says: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1 Section 9 says: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article 4 Section 2 says: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The 15th Amendment says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

All of these references to “persons” are understood to be talking about slaves. But has anyone ever tried to play dumb and make a legal argument based on some other possible interpretation of these passages?

I know this has been done with the 13th and 14th Amendments. People have, for example, argued against the military draft by claiming it is “involuntary servitude” (these arguments have been dismissed). And a whole bunch of legal cases having nothing to do with slavery have been based on the “equal protection” clause of the 14th (many of which have succeeded).

2

Article 1 sec 9, Article 4, and the 15th Amendment may be worded that way to cover former indentured servants as well as former slaves.

3

The 15th Amendment also covers any immigrants, Native Americans, and any other non-slaves who were or became citizens.

4

This clause was designed to prevent Congress from banning slave imports, but the wording effectively prevented Congress from banning any type of immigration until 1808. It reserved immigration policy to the states.

And this point was certainly raised when Congress debated the Alien Acts of 1798. The Alien Acts allowed the President to deport certain aliens, rather than barring their admittance, but Republicans argued that this was a distinction without a difference.

They lost, and the Alien Acts were enacted, but yes, this was an occasion when the euphemistic wording of the slavery clauses became an issue and could have had consequences.

5

Off-topic, but I once ran across a citation to a case where someone was arguing that prohibition of the possession of marijuana violated the Third Amendment. Yes, that’s right, the amendment that prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes.

So yes, I’m willing to bet that any argument, no matter how wacky, has been tried at least once.

6

As someone who was drafted, I think that argument has a lot of merit.

7

Since the main question of this thread seems to be answered, care to elaborate?

8

I still feel there’s plenty to be discussed in the original question.

But to answer your question, it was probably a right to privacy argument. A lot of people who argue there’s a general right to privacy implied in the Constitution point to the Third Amendment as evidence of this.

Somebody who made a direct argument based on the Third Amendment was the guy who sued the air force because its planes were flying over his property. That case was dismissed.

9

I don’t think it’s really “playing dumb” but yes,Lysander Spooner famously argued that there was no textual support for slavery in the Constitution. Later, Frederick Douglass joined him in this argument, saying that the Declaration of Independence pointed to the intent of the Constitution, and the fact that the FFs themselves had slaves in some circumstances in no way argued that they were authorizing slavery in the text. Previously, Douglass had believed that the Union was unavoidably tainted by the slavery authorized by the Constitution and was thereby invalid (I’m paraphrasing like crazy).

10

Lysander Spooner is probably better known for his series of anarchist tracts, No Treason, in specific the tract in that series “The Constitution Of No Authority”, which purported to prove that the Constitution, being a contract, had no power except over those who were of legal age when it was ratified, as contracts have no power to bind the posterity of the parties who agreed thereto.

I believe the proper legal rebuttal to this argument is “Sit down and shut up”, perhaps couched in more diplomatic language.