Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/11/2013 9:40:33 PM   
WebWanderer


Posts: 255
Joined: 5/20/2011
From: Fort Worth, TX
Status: offline
I was re-reading the Constitution the other day (because that's how I roll, apparently ) when I found this little gem:
"Section 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." (Emphasis added.)

Sooooo... Are y'all thinking what I'm thinking? Hypothetically, if you found a sufficiently crazy judge that sticks to a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, you and your sub could make your contract perfectly legal if the sub were ordered to serve you as a punishment for a crime (mouthing off or punching your arm or some such).

At the very least, this should provide more than enough fodder for "what if"-type BDSM stories.

What do you think?

_____________________________

Author of Introduction to Self-Bondage and Nine Tales of Submission - now available on Kindle! :)
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/11/2013 9:44:38 PM   
MsLadySue


Posts: 2254
Joined: 12/18/2004
Status: offline
Would you want to see a judge that "crazy" sitting on the bench? I know I wouldn't.

_____________________________

In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion.
I love it when someone insults me. That means I don't have to be nice anymore.

(in reply to WebWanderer)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/11/2013 9:48:57 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
@OP

I'm sure you'll be able to connect with legal experts all over the internet, who will have no trouble following your logic.

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to MsLadySue)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/11/2013 9:48:59 PM   
WebWanderer


Posts: 255
Joined: 5/20/2011
From: Fort Worth, TX
Status: offline
Err, okay - how about "kink-friendly judge who wants to go out with a bang"?

_____________________________

Author of Introduction to Self-Bondage and Nine Tales of Submission - now available on Kindle! :)

(in reply to MsLadySue)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 2:40:39 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
FR
That wording is meant to allow government to keep locking up criminals in prisons and jails. That is the involuntary servitude that is still legal.

(in reply to WebWanderer)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 3:46:09 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

I was re-reading the Constitution the other day (because that's how I roll, apparently ) when I found this little gem:
"Section 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." (Emphasis added.)

Sooooo... Are y'all thinking what I'm thinking? Hypothetically, if you found a sufficiently crazy judge that sticks to a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, you and your sub could make your contract perfectly legal if the sub were ordered to serve you as a punishment for a crime (mouthing off or punching your arm or some such).

At the very least, this should provide more than enough fodder for "what if"-type BDSM stories.

What do you think?



Only the government, as per the Constitution, can render or impose such slavery or servitude for a crime. And only the government can say what constitutes a crime. No private contract can do that. And certainly no judge who sticks to a "very strict interpretation of the Constitution" would say otherwise.

You could take the matter you (apparently) have with your slave to civil court and investigate tort remedy, but I can assure you no judge in that setting would be alluding to either the Constitution or civil law precedent in support of 'legally-bound' private or 'contract' slavery or other servitude.

Somehow, I suspect that these legal aspects never arise for worthy-of-the-name Dommes or Doms, or their (consenting) counterparts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce_HNyUQMGc



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/12/2013 3:58:10 AM >

(in reply to WebWanderer)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 8:43:13 AM   
MasterCaneman


Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline
But let's face it, the 'legal slavery?' threads can be entertaining as hell...

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler



(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 8:57:18 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Great, cuz I own one. You don't know what a fuckin load this legal analysis is offa my mind.

And you can quote me.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MasterCaneman)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 9:10:28 AM   
MasterCaneman


Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline
"me".

There ya go...

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler



(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 9:54:06 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

But let's face it, the 'legal slavery?' threads can be entertaining as hell...


Agreed.

They can also be very profitable, if you happen to work for Jones Day, especially if involving children.

http://www.jonesday.com/mlrice/?section=Experience

On July 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed an order granting summary judgment to Jones Day client Firestone Natural Rubber Company in a widely publicized case under the Alien Tort Statute.

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol18/iss1/18/

"The case of Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company involves child laborers' claims that labor practices on a Liberian rubber plantation violate international norms. Though the case was recently resolved in favor of the defendants at the district court level, the case's complicated procedural and substantive history offers insight into the viability of future child labor claims."


If we're talking about consenting adults, I agree that there is much fun to be had in such a venture, among the crowd here.

But even that Gorean thing would have some age or otherwise legal limit, we might hope.







< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/12/2013 10:08:29 AM >

(in reply to MasterCaneman)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 10:12:31 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

First pluck what steps off the boat in Botany Bay or Canberra, tell me you ain't thought about it.

But even ...

First off the boat of those uber-pious heavily-clothed-in-summer Pilgrims, on Plymouth Rock ...



(Oh, Stop!)



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/12/2013 10:18:44 AM >

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 1:32:33 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue

Would you want to see a judge that "crazy" sitting on the bench? I know I wouldn't.

I can't see a judge that crazy walking around free.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MsLadySue)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 1:36:51 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

Err, okay - how about "kink-friendly judge who wants to go out with a bang"?

Are there any crimes that carry slavery as a punishment under your legal code? It may not be specifically banned by the constitution, but I'd suspect it might come under cruel and unusual punishments even so.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to WebWanderer)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 1:40:15 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
~FR~

Those that are locked up for convicted crimes can be made to do things against their consent, and the exceptions would be anything deemed cruel and unusual. It really is not difficult to understand.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 1:44:07 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

Err, okay - how about "kink-friendly judge who wants to go out with a bang"?

Are there any crimes that carry slavery as a punishment under your legal code? It may not be specifically banned by the constitution, but I'd suspect it might come under cruel and unusual punishments even so.


Work without remuneration is slavery by all accounts, and we still have chain gangs in this country to be sure.



< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/12/2013 1:49:29 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 1:48:54 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
I'd assumed that was what the clause cited in the OP was all about, to be honest. Didn't know they still had chain gangs, but a lot of states are using their prison population as free labour, aren't they?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 1:55:15 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Yes, and chain gangs to us is like Bedlam to you, a generic thing. Remember Sherriff Joe the Piggio in Arizona, he was using chain gangs in actuality. And at the time of the amendment slave usage of prisoners was de rigueur. I really don't know how much actual chain gangs are used down south these days. Here they chain them one by one and make them spear litter.

And, after all they are sentenced to 'a life hard labor without the possiblity of parole'. no republican would pay for that boon.




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/12/2013 2:19:51 PM   
MasterCaneman


Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd assumed that was what the clause cited in the OP was all about, to be honest. Didn't know they still had chain gangs, but a lot of states are using their prison population as free labour, aren't they?


Prison labor here is not "free", they do receive a ridiculously tiny wage for their work (.35 to .75 cents an hour), in order for them to buy stuff at the commissary or towards restitution. I've always thought they should get at least minimum wage for their labors (license plates, school desks/lockers, etc.), so they can really pay off their actual financial obligations (fines, restitution, child support) and maybe come out of the joint with more than fifty bucks and no future.

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler



(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/13/2013 11:50:24 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd assumed that was what the clause cited in the OP was all about, to be honest. Didn't know they still had chain gangs, but a lot of states are using their prison population as free labour, aren't they?








With more than 2.3 million people locked up, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison.


This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.

From some of the poorest towns in America to some of the wealthiest investment firms on Wall Street, CNBC’s Scott Cohn travels the country to go inside the big and controversial business of prisons. We go inside private prisons and examine an Idaho facility nicknamed the “gladiator school” by inmates and former prison employees for its level of violence. We look at one of the fastest growing sectors of the industry, immigration detention, and tell the story of what happens when a hard hit town in Montana accepts an enticing sales pitch from private prison developers. In Colorado, we profile a little-known but profitable workforce behind bars, and discover that products created by prison labor have seeped into our everyday lives — even some of the food we eat. We also meet a tough-talking judge in the law-and-order state of Texas who’s actually trying to keep felons out of prison and save taxpayer money, through an innovative and apparently successful program.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44762286



Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is a company that owns and manages prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis. The company is the largest private corrections company in the United States and manages more than 60 facilities with a designed capacity of 90,000 beds. CCA, incorporated in 1983 by three businessmen with experience in government and corrections, is based in Nashville, Tennessee.[2]

Recognition

CCA was named in 2008 as one of the 100 best corporate citizens by Corporate Responsibility Officer magazine.[8] The national military magazine GI Jobs has highlighted CCA as a solid employer for veterans[9] and also named CCA as one of its "Top 50 Military Friendly Jobs" on four[not in citation given] separate occasions.[10]

The American Correctional Association (ACA) has accredited 90% of CCA's facilities.[citation needed] ACA's Accreditation is a system of verification that correctional agencies and facilities comply with national standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association. Accreditation is achieved through a series of reviews, evaluations, audits and hearings.[11]


Occupancy and profitability

In a 1990s report, Prudential Securities was bullish on CCA but noted, "It takes time to bring inmate population levels up to where they cover costs. Low occupancy is a drag on profits... company earnings would be strong if CCA succeeded in ramp(ing) up population levels in its new facilities at an acceptable rate".[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_America






its nice to see others are finally taking an interest in america, land of the prison plantations and why the people here need to get off their asses.




Top Shareholders in CCA & GEO
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the largest for-profit prison company in the United States. As of their latest filing, March 31, 2013, the Company operated 67 correctional and detention facilities, including 51 facilities that it owned, with a total capacity of approximately 92,500 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia.

Their top institutional investors include:

The Vanguard Group, Inc. owning 12,397,823 shares or 12.29% of common stock (up from 5.38% in 2011)
BlackRock, Inc. owning 5,383,733 shares or 5.34% of common stock (up from 4.99% in 2011)
Fidelity Management and Research LLC owning 5,092,363 or 5.05% of common stock
The GEO Group (GEO) is the second largest for-profit private prison company in the United States operating 55 correctional and detention facilities in 16 states.

As of March 2013, their top institutional investors include:

Scopia Fund Management LLC owning 10,717,268 shares or 14.84% of common stock (up from 12.20% in 2011)
Vanguard Group, Inc. owning 8,997,661 shares or 12.57% of common stock (up from 5.33% in 2011)
Fidelity Management and Research LLC owning 5,338,951 shares or 7.46% of common stock (down from 14.8% in 2011)
BlackRock, Inc. owning 4,655,233 shares or 6.5% of common stock (down from 7.8% in 2011)


land of the free! what a fucking insult.

the best way to insure justice in any country is to invest in its prisons!



< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/13/2013 11:51:16 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery - 7/15/2013 4:08:12 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
Well the key words here are 'involuntary servitude.' Does that not legally imply that there must be such a thing as 'voluntary servitude' for which many-a-case...could be made ?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094