In the context of the 13th amendment:
"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."
2007-07-23 02:28:52 · 5 answers · asked by Joe S 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
In the context of the 13th amendment:
"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."
Bias disclosure: If you think it is not, tell me how it is voluntary when you tell someone that he must serve in the military or else be imprisoned or shot.
In answering, please don't refer to legalese. Use your own common sense of what "involuntary" means.
2007-07-23 03:41:20 · update #1
Notwithstanding the fact that this has been argued and lost, and the fact that we have had conscription since the amendment was written, I think it's pretty obvious that it is, in fact, involuntary servitude.
Is it possible that the USSC got it wrong? They got Dred Scott wrong.
If you look at the Constitution, they didn't even envision standing armies, let alone conscription to fill them. If you look at the historical context of the Declaration of Independence, one of the complaints against the Crown was involuntary pressing citizens into the Navy. If the 13th really wanted to change that, it would have been easy to to add another phrase "or except for military service". They didn't do that, did they?
It really doesn't matter whether the people being conscripted are being taught military skills or picking cotton. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude.
2007-07-23 04:00:57 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm no expert on the constitution, but I've been told that there are parts that allow it. However, according to THAT amendment, yes it is involuntary servitude. Whether or not it's legal, it should never happen. Do you want to depend on someone to keep you alive if they resent having to be there?
2007-07-23 02:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is not. This claim has been argued before the Supreme Court many times - and lost.
2007-07-23 03:11:50 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the entire Constitution.
2007-07-23 02:32:58 · answer #4 · answered by ed 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No,it is an obligation of citizenship. No one who is unwilling to serve is worthy of citizenship.
2007-07-23 03:50:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋