On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:29:57 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty Post by Scout Post by #BeamMeUpScotty Post by Bill Flett Post by Bill Flett
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
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
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
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
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
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
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
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.
Any grade student in English class would diagram the sentence so.....
Apparently it's only when you grow up and decide you don't like what it
says that you start inventing your own rules for English.
Some people just can't accept the law as written, if what they read
isn't what they want to see.
After all, you can see the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.
And the first where it says "Congress shall make no law" and then
Liberals decide to make laws about all the following listed items.
If it's a right then there are no laws to be written. Because there is
NO delegated power.
A right and a power are the same and they can't exist at the same time,
the problem is that when you give or delegate your right to someone, it
becomes the power of that entity and the "RIGHT" is when you retain that
power for yourself. There can be no rights where another entity is
telling you how to use your rights. Because they would be powers that
you delegated away and they are NO longer rights when you delegate those
rights to others. The complication is when two rights conflict and then
"your rights" end at that point and that is a power. You can't kill
someone because it conflicts with their right to life,
Not true. There are laws which restrict the conditions and methods
whereby someone can be killed but there are no laws which make it
illegal to simply kill someone. The state can legally execute, the
military can kill the enemy, and I can personally kill under certain
conditions and restrictions.
Murder is illegal, so someone murdering you is illegal and you can stop
that murder. So can the police or military, they are supposed to protect
your right to life even with lethal force.
Still true.... you forfeit your rights when you are duly convicted of a
crime. Until you're convicted and lose all your rights and become a
slave to the state you can't be executed. So in amendment 13 the state
is allowed an "exception" and can enslave you with no rights, because
you are property.
And it is argued that the death penalty is a violation of your rights.
It might be better to suggest that it's destruction of public property.
I don't believe that killing slaves was any more right than killing free
men so they may or may NOT have has laws against killing slaves.
Although I doubt much was done about it.
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
If you have been made a slave to the state then you can be treated as a
slave and since you are property and not a free man with rights, your
life has become a delegated government power by you when you committed
the crime. That's a concept I don't actually agree with.
It's NOT the government stealing your right to life it's you forfeiting
it by your crime, I'm not sure if killing the slaves is acceptable
stewardship of your public property. Basically when you are convicted of
a crime you no longer have your rights except the ones the government
decides you have. A concept I'm NOT so comfortable with as you can't
personally and alone renounce your rights, they're in a document that
required 3/4 vote by all the States to change, so one person himself
can't change and remove their rights.
And the government can take any one or all of the rights from a criminal
that is NOW a government slave. Cruel and unusual punishment is a
limitation on the government and NOT truly a right that you retain when
duly convicted of a crime. It's the same as the government being
mandated to get a warrant to search a person or papers. That's a
government limitation NOT a "right" it is because we have a right to
privacy that this limitation on the government exists. Nature is cruel
and unusual with disease and injury so you don't have a right to NO
cruel and unusual death or existence, the government is just limited to
that in the government's treatment of you as it is by needing a warrant
to search you. Those are restrictions on the government. If they are
individual rights then they would hold true when there is NO government.
And your right to privacy can be maintained by government not searching
you and the right to no cruel or unusual punishment also depends on
there being government that inflicts punishment. So those limitations
are on the government and NOT dependent on the persons rights.
If we consider the death penalty part of the cruel and unusual
punishment then it will be unconstitutional. Where as murder is against
your right to life. The government nor fellow man can violate your rights.
The perfect example of the complexity is the abortion issue, the
government says it has no power to make abortion illegal, yet another
human life is depending on the government to protect it's rights. Who's
rights are superior? Does a woman duly convicted of a crime have a right
to abortion or is it the governments decision as a slave owner?
A duly convicted woman has no right to life or property so why would she
have a right to abortion? Do you allow a murderess to kill her baby
inside her uterus?
The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.