NDAA Violates 13th Amendment Provision Which Outlaws Slavery
Submitted by RPvGoldman Sachs on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 01:22Black's Law 5th:
Slavery. The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
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.
NDAA violates a million
NDAA violates a million different things in the Constitution. But not the 13th amendment.
Seriously, if you stretch the 13th amendment to such a degree, then you are no better than people who stretch the general welfare clause or the commerce clause to regulate all behaviour.
Unless this is being tongue-in-cheek?
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
Guess they are gonna have to rewrite the NDAA
You can see them right now rewriting it as they catch this from the DP.
They will fire back with some rhetoric that slavery is gone, it doesn't apply anymore therefore the 13th amendment is MOOT!
Academic. The NDAA already violates due process of law.
I expect violent resistance if the NDAA is enforced. After all, what do those subjected to it have to lose?
Agreed. Brilliant catch.
Grrrr thank you for this.
Brilliant catch!
What the 13th says by omission and by inclusion of the "convicted" exception is that incarceration without conviction is slavery and is therefore unconstitutional which is exactly what the questionable provisions of the NDAA do.
The problem is that you can't even get a lawyer in to talk to you in order to take your case up the "chain" once you've been imprisoned so a court ruling on it seems nearly impossible. Also, you can't just sue because a provision is unconstitutional. Unless you've been the one wronged by such a provision, some court along the way will toss the case due to lack of standing in that you haven't been actually "wronged."
Paul.
Very good point
Very good point