Why is health care reform unconstitutional?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The question isn’t really whether or not Congress called it a tax. It’s whether it’s a regulation. They can call it whatever they like as long as it’s something they actually have the constitutional authority to do.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It doesn’t matter what they believed. Conscription is involuntary servitude. Legislative intent cannot be used to ignore plain meaning.

I agree. It’s the plain meaning of “involuntary servittude” as including conscription – that, I disagree with.

And I shudder to imagine how you might interpret an organization’s by-laws, written in, say, 1910, that required the group’s activities chairman to have a gay disposition.

Words change meaning over time. In The Wife of Baths Tale, Chaucer’s character lists what women want – one of which is that men don’t criticize her for her vices:

And that no man reprove us of our vice,
But say we’ve been wise, and nothing nice.

Huh? Nothing nice? But that is nice, saying she’s been wise, isn’t it?

Not in Chaucer’s time. “Nice” was the antonym of “wise” – it meant foolish, silly, simple, ignorant.

I hope it’s clear that if you see the word “nice” used by Chaucer and insist its palin meaning is “pleasant” or “agreeable” … well, that would be …er… “nice” of you.

Similarly, the plain meaning of “involuntary servitude” did not include military conscription.

So, yes, I agree the plain meaning controls. But not the plain meaning of the words today, because they meant something slightly different when they were adopted.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

In what way is the meaning different today than when the 13th Amendment was passed? Period sources suggest that both words meant pretty much the same thing then as they do now, except that the sense referring to estates has passed out of use except in law.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In what way is the meaning different today than when the 13th Amendment was passed? Period sources suggest that both words meant pretty much the same thing then as they do now, except that the sense referring to estates has passed out of use except in law.

What period sources are those?

Quoting the Supreme Court in Butler v. Perry, 240 US 328 (1916):

Utilizing the language of the Ordinance of 1787, the Thirteenth Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our Government, and the term involuntary servitude was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 69, 71, 72; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Hence my allusion to “specious reasoning”. Why did the Northwest Ordinance and the 13th Amendment distinguish between “involuntary servitude” and “slavery”, do you think?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Hence my allusion to “specious reasoning”. Why did the Northwest Ordinance and the 13th Amendment distinguish between “involuntary servitude” and “slavery”, do you think?

Because they are not the same thing.

Salvery refers to the ownership of human beings. “Involuntary servitude” is a broader term encompassing peonage or compulsory labor for the discharge of debts.

That doesn’t mean it extends to things like military service, any more than it extends to jury duty.