Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Attila
2017-01-27 13:32:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Free hint, the court doesn't need to use the wording, nor does it even need
a law. Further prior court decisions can also be ignored, but then they are
put in the position of whether a higher court will accept their revision of
the law as they made it.
Which is one reason those higher courts exist.
Yep, we see where this is goes. The law is the arbitrary whim of the court,
and you're perfectly happy accepting living under such whimsical law.
It is the way our system works - like it or move elsewhere.
You clearly of the British mindset, where you accept that others can tell
you what to think.
What do you have against the British?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-27 13:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:37:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 02:00:42 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:31:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:50:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:42:22 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such
illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even
legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't
preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen
to
the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and
how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically
legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said
so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history.
See what happens when you allow the courts to decide what the law is
rather
than looking at the law itself.
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
If two people read a law and disagree about what it means who is
wrong?
The one that sees what isn't actually in the language, context and intent
of
the law as written and passed into law.
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research.
What happens if two or more people did such reading and basic research
and came to conflicting opinions? Who would prevail?


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 14:26:00 UTC
Permalink
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-27 22:25:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?

It worked for Prohibition.

Don't bother screaming that would never happen. That is not what is
being discussed.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-27 15:54:50 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was carried
out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.

Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional? Above, you said
"That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide". Of course that
is the case in our legal system, but isn't it true that according to
your supersession argument the courts should hold that 1) such a
sentence is permitted by the 13th, and 2) therefore cannot be cruel and
unusual punishment?
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 17:11:27 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery.
This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a
legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented
other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the
slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave. The guard is an employee of the state - the state's
agent. The guard is, at best, the equivalent of a plantation
overseer -
a civil service Simon Legree.
Stop being stupid.
Did you read the article?
Enough of it to know that the guard is not made the lawful owner of the
prisoner, yes.
The author agrees with you when the prison guard acts on his own, but
disagrees with you when the sentence calls for the prison guard being
the owner.
No such sentence.
Hypothetically there could be.
No. The only "slavery" <chuckle> contemplated by the 13th amendment is
the limited control of the person by the state. There is no ownership;
only control.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-27 18:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery.
This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a
legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented
other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the
slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave. The guard is an employee of the state - the state's
agent. The guard is, at best, the equivalent of a plantation
overseer -
a civil service Simon Legree.
Stop being stupid.
Did you read the article?
Enough of it to know that the guard is not made the lawful owner of the
prisoner, yes.
The author agrees with you when the prison guard acts on his own, but
disagrees with you when the sentence calls for the prison guard being
the owner.
No such sentence.
Hypothetically there could be.
No. The only "slavery" <chuckle> contemplated by the 13th amendment is
the limited control of the person by the state. There is no ownership;
only control.
... he said begging the question.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-27 19:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery.
This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a
legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented
other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the
slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave. The guard is an employee of the state - the state's
agent. The guard is, at best, the equivalent of a plantation
overseer -
a civil service Simon Legree.
Stop being stupid.
Did you read the article?
Enough of it to know that the guard is not made the lawful owner of the
prisoner, yes.
The author agrees with you when the prison guard acts on his own, but
disagrees with you when the sentence calls for the prison guard being
the owner.
No such sentence.
Hypothetically there could be.
No. The only "slavery" <chuckle> contemplated by the 13th amendment is
the limited control of the person by the state. There is no ownership;
only control.
... he said begging the question.
LOL!

All you would need would be one counter-example to prove me wrong,
little sophomore joshie. There are some required details to this
counter-example, however:

1. convict's sentence expressly says slavery
2. state attempts to sell convict - permanent title transfer
3. sale is challenged in court as violation of 13th amendment
4. court rejects challenge on 13th amendment exception grounds

As I and my associates Mr. Flett and Mr. VanRensselaer have elaborated,
prisoners and their sympathizers see them as "like" slaves, in that
someone else controls them to some degree, without their consent. That
control is never the same quality or extent as it was under chattel slavery.

Numerous scholars have elaborated that the language of the thirteenth
amendment is taken from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Here is one:

The language of the Thirteenth Amendment is taken from the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787. But the idea of “slavery” at the founding was far
broader than the chattel slavery that was the primary object of the
Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. To the Founders, slavery was the very
opposite of republican government. American revolutionaries argued
that British tyranny and the un-representativeness of British
institutions had reduced them to slaves.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=948094085101100117097098092088004112050056057015048070089079093127004082102025068111035039121014039099118097086124002083024065018080026002036080126107120019020022067046084067027027011068104073111026103106102095072103110023027121105102112076124090067&EXT=pdf

But of course they *weren't* chattel slaves.

You're not a lawyer, little sophomore joshie, and you don't know any who
inform your speculative spew about legal issues. You're a sophist who
wishes you had been a lawyer rather than a civil engineer or whatever
other trade you plied.
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-27 23:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're not a lawyer, little sophomore
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

Bill Flett
2017-01-27 17:57:14 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop. The
prisoner does not become the lawful property of anyone. The apparent
exception granted by the 13th amendment is for a broader, more
rhetorical meaning of slavery.
Sorry, but if the 13th applies to a broader, more rhetorical meaning of
slavery, then why isn't the 13th applied to such broader, more
rhetorical slavery?
LOL! It is. But it excludes chattel slavery. There is no ownership of
the prisoner, and there is not *complete* control of the prisoner. For
example, a true chattel slave cannot sue in court. Prisoners can.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 20:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop. The
prisoner does not become the lawful property of anyone. The apparent
exception granted by the 13th amendment is for a broader, more
rhetorical meaning of slavery.
Sorry, but if the 13th applies to a broader, more rhetorical meaning of
slavery, then why isn't the 13th applied to such broader, more
rhetorical slavery?
LOL! It is. But it excludes chattel slavery. There is no ownership of
the prisoner, and there is not *complete* control of the prisoner. For
example, a true chattel slave cannot sue in court. Prisoners can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_slave_court_cases

Dred Scott is one of those listed on this link but there are more.

What are you saying, is it that blacks were never slaves?
--
That's Karma
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 17:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 20:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
Strange since it says NO "slavery" and then it says except... and the
word except is applied to slavery so it looks as if the 13th allows
"slavery" under that exception.
--
That's Karma
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 18:04:37 UTC
Permalink
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the
death penalty for things like parking violations, so the
case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual
punishment, which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death
penalty for infractions and misdemeanors would be
prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit
cruel and unusual punishment, and courts are charged with
applying the Eighth Amendment to claims that a particular
punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude
or enslavement as punishment for your crime would be a
cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these
were cruel and unusual punishments the 8th could no longer
be a basis for denying such a sentence because the 13th
would have changed, altered, modified and or eliminated
such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether
a particular punishment for a particular crime
is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal
(constitutional) in the separate case of a person
duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence
of slavery would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment
if either slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel
and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify, negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would
be in conflict with the language within the later Amendment.
Bullshit.
OK.....why is it legal to buy and drink alcohol?
Because the 21st explicitly repealed the 18th, of course. Heck,
even elementary school civics students can get that one. The
13th amendment has no connection whatever to the 8th.
I accept your acknowledgement that neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude when imposed as a punishment for crime would be a cruel or
unusual punishment.
It's a matter of degrees, of proportionality. For example, the death
penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment for certain particularly
heinous homicides, if carried out humanely. But execution by drawing
and quartering is cruel and unusual punishment in all cases.
Agreed, standard 'normal' chattel slavery would be allowed by the 13th
No. It isn't. "Something akin to slavery" is allowed, sort of in the
way petulant children say their parents are treating them like "slaves"
in controlling what the children do, but of course the children are not
literal slaves, nor are prisoners.
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 18:18:28 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery. This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave.
Doesn't matter who is the slave's 'owner'.
It sure does.
Ok...then explain to me how slavery is allowed under the 13th based
purely on who the 'owner' is.
Chattel slavery - that is, persons held as property - *isn't* allowed by
the thirteenth amendment. Prisoners can be ordered to work, and can be
punished if they refuse, but the punishments allowed are limited. The
guards are not permitted to whip or beat or kill prisoners who refuse to
work as ordered; chattel slaves are subject to any punishment the owner
wishes to inflict.

The thirteenth amendment does not allow chattel slavery as a criminal
sentence. It allows something "like" slavery.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-01-27 18:22:57 UTC
Permalink
On 1/25/2017 12:03 AM, Scout wrote:>
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if
either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual
punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
Wrong. If a state had a law authorizing slavery as a criminal
punishment per 13A, and if a person was tried for a crime,
convicted
and sentenced to slavery pursuant to the authorizing statute, he
could
invoke cruel and unusual punishment as a defense.
Anyone can invoke any excuse they like, but the reality is what is
permitted by the 13th
You're not a lawyer and have no background in law or political
science. You're making crap up.
And you've not refuted me in the least.
I have. You are making crap up, based solely on your far-right
ideology and not facts.
Fact: The language of the 13th Amendment
Fact: Independent verification of that language via a source posted by
Clave
Fact: The legal order of precedents involving Amendments which change,
alter, modify, override or otherwise negate any prior language of
provisions that would conflict with the provisions of the Amendment.
This is where you go off the rails. You don't have any understanding
of this at all. You're just making it up.
And other than your denial, do you have anything to refute what I stated?
Fact: The 13th was ratified long after the 8th Amendment
Irrelevant and immaterial. The 27th was ratified long after the 4th. So?
So it means that if the 27th Amendment and the 4th Amendment were ever
in conflict, what the 27th Amendment states would override the
conflicting language within the 4th.
You have no valid basis for stating that - no knowledge of the law.
It's what you wish to believe, that's all.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 19:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
--
That's Karma
Don Kresch
2017-01-27 22:27:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-27 22:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.
says the Chicago burrito roller, ignorantly.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 22:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.
Let me guess, they tested you already?
--
That's Karma
Loading...