Consider the 13th Amendment.
Section 1.
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, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
“Except as punishment for crime”. Theoretically, does that exception permit a court to sentence a criminal to be my slave?
More like the court is permitted to sentence a criminal to hard labor, i.e. involuntary servitude.
I heard somewhere that the Southern States used this loophole to prosecute many blacks on mostly fabricated charges and sent them back to work on cotton fields and plantations. Obviously it’s no longer done today. But I suppose theoretically it is still possible unless the Supreme Court struck it down.
Yes, its a moot point whether the qualifying phrase is linked to ‘involuntary servitude’ alone, or ‘slavery or involuntary servitude’. I suspect the former. I wonder if there are any other sections of the Constitution where the grammar makes for ambiguity.
All this is taken to mean, generally, is that you can impose work as punishment for a crime, from busting rocks to community service, without having a convict raise a thirteenth amendment defense. No big deal.
As far as sentencing a prisoner to be a slave, theoretically, you could look at it that way, so long as the conditions imposed aren’t cruel and unusual. Many a highway was built by a prison crew. Being your (or the warden’s) personal valet would be a privilege in comparison.
Are there any other sections of the Constitution where the grammar makes for ambiguity? Seems like damn near all of them.
Isn’t that why we have a Supreme Court?
Yep, that’s exactly why we have a Supreme Court (post Marbury). Although I now notice s/he did say where the "grammar makes for ambiguity, " meaning probably patent ambiguity. That maybe not so much, but the whole thing is latently ambiguous.
Paging GregAtlanta, Mr. GregAtlanta, please report to the Reading Room with your copy of Lay This Body Down.
OK this was an illegal activity in this book. But accepted at the time.
How about “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? I understand there has been the periodic disagreement over the exact meaning of that section…
Why do I keep thinking of that Seinfeld episode where George and Jerry pitch the TV show about the court sentencing some guy to be Jerry’s butler? 
My thread on exactly the same question: