Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Here's Amendment 13: 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. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. So it seems plausible that a legislature could recommend sentences of slavery for crimes against certain laws by the terms of this amendment. What would be some crimes that slavery could be an appropriate sentence?
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Forgetting to call your mother on Mother's Day? Seriously though, I can't think of any crime for which slavery would be an appropriate punishment. But then I'm against slavery in general... That said, since slavery is in the bible doesn't that make it not only legal but moral as well?? Word of God and all that...(just kidding, of course)
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, technically speaking aren't prisoners pretty much doing forced labor? I know they receive a pittance for it, but it sure isn't much...and a chain gang ain't exactly a cushy job. And if they refuse to work, they get punished. That would certainly be considered a form of involuntary servitude, at least.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn What about corporate embezzlement? Would you want a former corporate CEO as your slave for 15 years as a form of his/her punishment?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "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." The punishment for a crime applies to involuntary servitude only, which is essentially jail time. The word "nor" separates the two as subjects of the sentence. Had this been applicable to slavery as well, the word "or" would have been used instead.
Originally Posted By Mr X Makes sense. Basically the big difference between the two would be that slavery involves considering the enslaved "property", right? As opposed to involuntary servitude which may include harsh work for little or no pay and punishments (as in the case with prisoners), and pretty much all the other stuff involved with slavery except the property angle. Am I right?
Originally Posted By SuperDry Another thread in the outstanding series of thoughtful interpretations of the Constitution.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn The use of 'nor' actually works conjuntively with the preceeding word 'Neither'. 'Nor' simultaneously links the 'neither' slavery or 'neither' involuntary servitude to the word "shall" after the comma phrase that follows. It could be translated "Neither slavery shall exist or neither involuntary solitude shall exist". The 'except' phrase simultaneously applies to both slavery or involuntary solitude. The phrase could be applied at the end of the sentence. It does not have a single associate to 'involuntary servitude'.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Another thread in the outstanding series of thoughtful interpretations of the Constitution.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn ...and of course, I would never want a slave, and ya'll shouldn't either. It is one of the most inhumane concepts of all. I'm just wondering if a loophole could be interpreted.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder No, a loophole could not be interpreted. That's why the word "nor" was used when the amendment was written. But please, no threads about God preferring slavery.
Originally Posted By jonvn Of course there is no loophole. Why don't you get yourself a more worthwhile hobby and stop wasting your time with this junk?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn "Of course there is no loophole. Why don't you get yourself a more worthwhile hobby and stop wasting your time with this junk?" So why do we all hang out on Laughingplace.com all day for ten years?
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm here because I like to talk about some things, and write. Writing is what I do. And this is a way to do it to unwind. I have an interest in Disney stuff. This board is pretty good for that, it also has this section where you can talk about world events. that's fun. But honestly, your attempts to twist the well understood meanings of the constitution around on a word or phrase on semantic nitpicking is a complete waste of time. If that's what you want to do, fine, but it really is a fruitless endeavor. No one is going to think that slavery is in any way legal. That was the entire purpose, intent and wording of that ammendment.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No, a loophole could not be interpreted. That's why the word "nor" was used when the amendment was written. But please, no threads about God preferring slavery.<< There's a phrase for these kinds of exercises, but I don't think it's appropriate for LP. Let's just call it "intellectual...uh...self-happiness." Sorry mrkthompsn, but threads like these remind me of being in a freshman college dorm. "Dude, I think if you read the Constitution this way, slavery's still legal! And there's a phrase in Article II that means girls have to take their tops off whenever you want. Dude, pass the joint."
