13th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section I. 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.
Section II. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States? Technically, that means anti-discrimination laws, business regulation, drug laws, gun laws, taxes, and every other compulsory, coercive dictate handed down by every government (federal and state) in the United States is prohibited by the Constitution. The State itself - the federal government and all the states - is prohibited because by its very existence (compelling the involuntary purchase of their "services") it compels involuntary servitude.
If Congress has the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation, it may pass legislation abolishing itself and every other instrument of statism in the United States. Congress has, thus far, neglected to perform this Constitutional duty.
"Nolite confidere in principibus"
~ Psalm 146:3
Insightful and funny. With this argument, this makes me wonder if the Obama Administration suggesting required "Community Service" is not only immoral but unconstitutional.
Would jury duty be involuntary servitude?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Sorry, but the 16th Amendment takes precedence over the 13th, because it was passed at a later date.
DANG!
"We have thus stepped back from the position our ancestors occupied; for we allow under the flag of justice, and consecrate in the name of the law, what was imposed on them by violence alone."
Can a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Or is that why they are amended?;)
In a tax resistance/evasion trial, the judge typically will say "The Constitution does not apply here." The obvious contradictions, inconsistencies, and immoralities are ignored.
Look at it this way. The USA has been secretly operating under martial law since 1861 (when the southern states walked out of Congress and it continued without a quorum) or 1933 (default on gold-redeemability of the dollar).
The Constitution should not be interpreted as placing any restrictions on what State employees may do. If they can get away with it, they'll do it.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Wait, why wouldn't the U.S. Congress have had a quorum? After all, the Southern states left the Union; they shouldn't have been counted as holding seats in Congress anymore...
Taylor:Wait, why wouldn't the U.S. Congress have had a quorum? After all, the Southern states left the Union; they shouldn't have been counted as holding seats in Congress anymore...
The Southern states never formally were allowed to withdraw from the union. They merely left. If Congress had actually ratified the Southern states' withdrawal, then it would have been acknowledging their right to secede. They were counted as absences.
President Lincoln issued the first executive order, demanding that Congress return to session. Technically, the USA has been operating under martial law ever since.
This is stupid. Slavery is forced labour. Taxation or regulation are not.
Jury duty and draft is, though.
scineram:Taxation or regulation are not.
I beg to disagree. We have to work and purchase things to sustain ourselves. Those things are taxed, forcing us to work more (or in order to pay taxes) to sustain ourselves.
The other options is, we can stop paying taxes, and some other poor "father less man" can pay to sustain us.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
scineram:This is stupid. Slavery is forced labour. Taxation or regulation are not.
In this article, Walter Williams talks of the "free slaves" which were basically rented instead of sold. The masters would give them plenty of freedom, to get a job and build a future, with the condition of getting some of that income. I am sure those masters even provided them with safety nets, checks and whatever to safeguard their investment.
Anyway, the ammendment says "neither slavery (...) shall exist within the United States", so it seems to be a restriction on private slavery, not on public one... :/
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
BlackSheep:The masters would give them plenty of freedom, to get a job and build a future, with the condition of getting some of that income. I am sure those masters even provided them with safety nets, checks and whatever to safeguard their investment.
Hold on there, mister, we have ourselves a system of government of the people, by the people so the people can't enslave themselves as there aren't any 'masters'.
Oh, wait...
Anonymous Coward: BlackSheep:The masters would give them plenty of freedom, to get a job and build a future, with the condition of getting some of that income. I am sure those masters even provided them with safety nets, checks and whatever to safeguard their investment. Hold on there, mister, we have ourselves a system of government of the people, by the people so the people can't enslave themselves as there aren't any 'masters'. Oh, wait...
Sadly, I know a person who rationalized (more or less) that since the masters are actually "people", that technically it is still rule "by the people, for the people", and that all we "need" to do, is just keep them in line and make sure they pull the right levers. Anyone one who get's lucky enough to get "their turn" get's their go at it, and the process repeats They didn't actually use the word "lever", but you get the picture :\.
Here is the crux of the issue, and the problem that seriously needs a solution: the government is completely anti Constitutional so there is little chance that the loophole to cause it to abolish itself is going to happen legitimately. All of these agencies and their respective agents in federal and state governments, including law enforcement, etc. are there to uphold and defend the principles and laws of the Constitution, and they certainly parade that around when they want anything or want to stop things - but it's clear to any lucid rational being that everything they do is in diamteric opposition to the Constitution.
Therefore, it is factual that they clearly must not mean the United States Constitution, that became supreme law of the land - and by land we mean the United States of America, on March 4, 1789, so they must be referring to some other unknown Constitution with a wholly antithetical set of powers to the USC. In that sense, they are not necessarily traitors to the USC since the USC is moot and irrelevant. Whether they are treasonous to this other, unknown Constitution is unknown, as is whether there is any declaration regarding treason at all.
If this is true, and it is, then this is not our federal government, but a fraud and imposter, and we're following two different things here, and should be able to disavow this imposter government, which would then leave the United States without any governing body at all - which is actually the best thing that ever happened to us, and it also would mean that these laws we've been subjected to are rendered null and void to us as a people...in which case this all boils down to a gang of exploiters using force to enslave a population for their own gains, and which should compel each of us to start taking them out by whatever means necessary because this would fall into the whole "free market" sort of power play for control of the land and resources.
I.e. it boils down to a case of us vs them.
This then, follows the natural order of survival of the fittest and natual selection - which is inherently correct - in which those who are survival oriented will have the advantage over those who are not, which then clears up how and why this entire nightmare got so out of control. It's no longer about law, order, Constitution, rights, legalities, governance, patriotism, libertarian or anything else. It is about simple survival between two bodies with opposing measures to achieve the same directive: survival.
If we, as a society, are this inept and unwilling to see this for precisely what it is, then we, as a society would be devoured - just or unjust is moot. We will either accept the strength of the competitor or we will destroy the competitor, or do our damnedest to do so...and since most people are lulled into complacency, which is our weakest area, then those who can and will act, should do precisely the same and exploit to destroy their weakest area. It will, regardless, come down to the best and most suited to the environment will have the advantage and will likely survive, while the other, weaker forms die off.
Why NOT consider this strategy in its actual form and set aside the philosophy and the debates and labels, in order to consider hard wired, very real practical means of striking the competitor where it is weakest. The same principle works glaringly so in the whole competition of ideas between parties - those who find the Democratic/Republican parties defective (weak) will automatically move toward compatible ideas until such time as these two power parties lose so much numbers they go out of business, or extinct.
As it stands, there are massive roadblocks in forming a big enough organism of a Libertarian Party to simply overrun the current main parties, but if you're familiar with viruses, then the "biggest" isn't necessarily guaranteed a win...only an advantage. We have an advantage only insofar as our immune system can fend off virulent organisms, but the second we start sneezing, we're not quite the winners after all.
Also, consider that the numbers of the people in this country who are general citizens far, far outnumber the amount of individuals in all facets of governing bodies in every state...yet despite our numbers and size, the smaller governing beast has a stronghold advantage.
The solution can only be to attack its immune system, take away its food...which can be done by the actual numbers of those who are willing to actually take direct and decisive action. In reflecting, we don't necessarily need the unanimous contribution or approval of every citizen in the country.
We need more to identify the actual immune system and its food source and then attack that - by whatever relevant means required.
Using the Constitution either way would be moot since they do not follow that doctrine anyway, and that is really more distractions, same as protesting, which is basically little more effective than sneezing to make your cold go away.
If we do not intend to go down quietly, maybe evaluating the correct measures to get rid of it, without risking our own survival in the process, is the better way to approach this issue.
Thoughts?
Having contemplated this a little more since the above post, I may have discovered another loophole!
K, what we do is this - we all just become Republicans instead! See, because the government simply refuses to prosecute Republicans. Say you're driving down the road and a cop pulls you over - let's say one of those nazi kop sorts who's just salivating to taz somebody - and then you ask what the reason is and he says well, you were speeding, there are open containers all in the front seat, you're clearly intoxicated, you drove up on the sidewalk and hit two pedestrians, ran a cyclist off the road and broke his back, you went two more blocks and stopped in the lawn of the Catholic church, ran in there and molested a couple altarboys, picked up a male prostitute and got serviced in an airline bathroom stall, and helped Karl Rove escape a citizen's arrest.
That's when you go, *Yeah, but I'm a Republican and I serve Bush*
Well, the kop will simply pat you on the back and go, "ohhh, well it's okay then...you're cool. Have a great night!" and send you on your way.
So if we all just changed over to Republicans we could probably sit outside any government office and snipe them off and never actually be prosecuted for it. Even when they screw each other over, nobody ever really holds them accountable for anything. You know, pull it down from the inside!
MsPatriot: Having contemplated this a little more since the above post, I may have discovered another loophole! K, what we do is this - we all just become Republicans instead! See, because the government simply refuses to prosecute Republicans. Say you're driving down the road and a cop pulls you over - let's say one of those nazi kop sorts who's just salivating to taz somebody - and then you ask what the reason is and he says well, you were speeding, there are open containers all in the front seat, you're clearly intoxicated, you drove up on the sidewalk and hit two pedestrians, ran a cyclist off the road and broke his back, you went two more blocks and stopped in the lawn of the Catholic church, ran in there and molested a couple altarboys, picked up a male prostitute and got serviced in an airline bathroom stall, and hel
K, what we do is this - we all just become Republicans instead! See, because the government simply refuses to prosecute Republicans. Say you're driving down the road and a cop pulls you over - let's say one of those nazi kop sorts who's just salivating to taz somebody - and then you ask what the reason is and he says well, you were speeding, there are open containers all in the front seat, you're clearly intoxicated, you drove up on the sidewalk and hit two pedestrians, ran a cyclist off the road and broke his back, you went two more blocks and stopped in the lawn of the Catholic church, ran in there and molested a couple altarboys, picked up a male prostitute and got serviced in an airline bathroom stall, and hel