US lawmakers unveil anti-slavery constitutional amendment

[TU Curmudgeon]

From Associated Press

US lawmakers unveil anti-slavery constitutional amendment​

NEW YORK (AP) — National lawmakers introduced a joint resolution Wednesday aimed at striking language from the U.S. Constitution that enshrines a form of slavery in America’s foundational documents.

The resolution, spearheaded and supported by Democratic members of the House and Senate, would amend the 13th Amendment’s ban on chattel enslavement to expressly prohibit involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. As ratified, the original amendment has permitted exploitation of labor by convicted felons for over 155 years since the abolition of slavery.

The 13th Amendment “continued the process of a white power class gravely mistreating Black Americans, creating generations of poverty, the breakup of families and this wave of mass incarceration that we still wrestle with today,” Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon told The Associated Press ahead of the resolution’s introduction.

A House version is led by outgoing Rep. William Lacy Clay, of St. Louis, who said the amendment “seeks to finish the job that President (Abraham) Lincoln started.”

COMMENT:-

The first person who posts something that translates out to either "It's about time." or "Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans." will be sent to their room without any supper.​

 

[Phys251]

From Associated Press

US lawmakers unveil anti-slavery constitutional amendment​

NEW YORK (AP) — National lawmakers introduced a joint resolution Wednesday aimed at striking language from the U.S. Constitution that enshrines a form of slavery in America’s foundational documents.

The resolution, spearheaded and supported by Democratic members of the House and Senate, would amend the 13th Amendment’s ban on chattel enslavement to expressly prohibit involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. As ratified, the original amendment has permitted exploitation of labor by convicted felons for over 155 years since the abolition of slavery.

The 13th Amendment “continued the process of a white power class gravely mistreating Black Americans, creating generations of poverty, the breakup of families and this wave of mass incarceration that we still wrestle with today,” Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon told The Associated Press ahead of the resolution’s introduction.

A House version is led by outgoing Rep. William Lacy Clay, of St. Louis, who said the amendment “seeks to finish the job that President (Abraham) Lincoln started.”

COMMENT:-

​

The first person who posts something that translates out to either "It's about time." or "Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans." will be sent to their room without any supper.​

The resolution, spearheaded and supported by Democratic members of the House and Senate, would amend the 13th Amendment’s ban on chattel enslavement to expressly prohibit involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. As ratified, the original amendment has permitted exploitation of labor by convicted felons for over 155 years since the abolition of slavery.

Just to clarify, you do agree with the proposal, right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Just to clarify, you do agree with the proposal, right?

Since it means the end of "convict farming", I most certainly do.

I have no issue with convicts being required to work to maintain their accommodations, or produce their own food, or supply their other personal needs, but I have a real problem with convicts being "rented out for profit" - ESPECIALLY when they are being "rented out for profit at LESS than 'market rate'".

Now, if convicts were being "rented out at market rate with the income going to the convict and the convict being required to pay (from that income) towards their own keep" I might not have such an objection to it (especially if the rates being charged the convict for their own keep were NOT artificially inflated and were related to the actual costs of THAT PARTICULAR CONVICT).

 

[Roadvirus]

The first person who posts something that translates out to either "It's about time." or "Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans." will be sent to their room without any supper.​

It's about time!
Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It's about time!
Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans!

Has the amendment passed or will it pass in the remaining months that Trump is in office?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's about time!
Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans!

Go to your room!

Not only are you not getting any supper, but you're grounded for a week!

 

[Moon]

From Associated Press

US lawmakers unveil anti-slavery constitutional amendment​

NEW YORK (AP) — National lawmakers introduced a joint resolution Wednesday aimed at striking language from the U.S. Constitution that enshrines a form of slavery in America’s foundational documents.

The resolution, spearheaded and supported by Democratic members of the House and Senate, would amend the 13th Amendment’s ban on chattel enslavement to expressly prohibit involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. As ratified, the original amendment has permitted exploitation of labor by convicted felons for over 155 years since the abolition of slavery.

The 13th Amendment “continued the process of a white power class gravely mistreating Black Americans, creating generations of poverty, the breakup of families and this wave of mass incarceration that we still wrestle with today,” Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon told The Associated Press ahead of the resolution’s introduction.

A House version is led by outgoing Rep. William Lacy Clay, of St. Louis, who said the amendment “seeks to finish the job that President (Abraham) Lincoln started.”

COMMENT:-

​

The first person who posts something that translates out to either "It's about time." or "Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans." will be sent to their room without any supper.​

I wonder how involuntary servitude will be defined and would such an amendment be enforced. First thing that comes to mind is community service for minor offenses.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I wonder how involuntary servitude will be defined and would such an amendment be enforced. First thing that comes to mind is community service for minor offenses.

The simplest definition that I can think of is

IF "A" has the right and power to force "B" to labour, THEN "B" is in involuntary servitude to "A".​

There may be gongs and whistles that you can hang on it, but that's about as simple as I can make it.

 

[j brown's body]

It's about time!
Two presidents got rid of slavery, Lincoln and Trump. BOTH were Republicans!

Lincoln WAS a Republican. Most people don't know that.

 

[Moon]

The simplest definition that I can think of is

IF "A" has the right and power to force "B" to labour, THEN "B" is in involuntary servitude to "A".​

There may be gongs and whistles that you can hang on it, but that's about as simple as I can make it.

Yes, that would be the common definition. What will matter is how the amendment is written and more importantly how it will be acted on. That will probably require a few court cases to sort out.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Lincoln WAS a Republican. Most people don't know that.

"Most" means "more than 50%.

American history it taught in American schools.

A part of the curriculum of American history is "The Presidents of the United States of America".

Included as a part of that part of the curriculum is the party identification of the American presidents.

Your belief that MORE THAN 50% of Americans are ignorant on such a basic point of American history is depressing. It would be even more depressing if it were true (a point on which I take no position).

 

[Anthony60]

For Christ's sake, this is the amendment they come up with? What a bunch of losers. How about an amendment for a balanced budget? Term limits? No, this dopey pile of crap is what they give us. This is why people hate Congress.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

For Christ's sake, this is the amendment they come up with? What a bunch of losers. How about an amendment for a balanced budget? Term limits? No, this dopey pile of crap is what they give us. This is why people hate Congress.

Since BOTH parties want to have the option of running defecits, and since none of the elected representatives want to be subject to -mandatory unemployment- term limits, why on earth would you think that there would be any consideration being given to those items by the elected representatives of EITHER "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Republican Party’)" or "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Democratic Party’)"?

 

[Anthony60]

Since BOTH parties want to have the option of running defecits, and since none of the elected representatives want to be subject to -mandatory unemployment- term limits, why on earth would you think that there would be any consideration being given to those items by the elected representatives of EITHER "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Republican Party’)" or "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Democratic Party’)"?

The States would need to bypass Congress on that one. I’m my opinion, term limits is the single best thing we could do to make our government better.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The States would need to bypass Congress on that one. I’m my opinion, term limits is the single best thing we could do to make our government better.

Yes, I guess that such a constitutional amendment COULD come up from the states, but the prospect of having it interpreted as meaning that NEITHER the national nor state levels of government would be allowed to run deficits and that all terms of office at both the national and state level would be "term limited" is one that would make the several states very leery about pushing it.

"Amending the U.S. Constitution" (from The National Conference of State Legislatures) discusses this point a bit more fully.

 

[Anthony60]

Yes, I guess that such a constitutional amendment COULD come up from the states, but the prospect of having it interpreted as meaning that NEITHER the national nor state levels of government would be allowed to run deficits and that all terms of office at both the national and state level would be "term limited" is one that would make the several states very leery about pushing it.

"Amending the U.S. Constitution" (from The National Conference of State Legislatures) discusses this point a bit more fully.

No, just an amendment putting term limits on Congress and the SC, nothing to do with the States. Maybe two terms in each House, and 15 years for the SC. Of course, a little more specific than what I just wrote. And let's get the the Senators back to being selected by the the State legislatures, not a direct election by the people, that's why the House has direct elections.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, just an amendment putting term limits on Congress and the SC, nothing to do with the States.

Would you like to bet that any such constitutional amendment WOULD NOT include state legislatures?

Maybe two terms in each House, and 15 years for the SC.

So, four years total in the House of Representatives (at the end of which the person likely knows which days are the best day to eat in the House dining room) plus 12 years in the Senate (for two of the lucky Representatives (at the end of which they will transition into lucrative private employment with the firms that they gave the most lucrative presents to).

Of course, a little more specific than what I just wrote.

Yes, that might be a good idea - especially your justification for placing the actual control of the government of the United States of America into the hands of the unelected civil service.

And let's get the the Senators back to being selected by the the State legislatures, not a direct election by the people, that's why the House has direct elections.

Oh hell, why not go right back to what the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was and only let rich, white, males have any substantive say in either the selection of Senators or the President?

 

[Anthony60]

Would you like to bet that any such constitutional amendment WOULD NOT include state legislatures?

Why would an amendment to the federal Constitution include term limits for State legislators? That would be an issue for each individual State's constitution. I doubt any State would vote to give the federal government the power to reach into a State like that, especially when the point is to put limits on the federal government.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why would an amendment to the federal Constitution include term limits for State legislators?

It would all depend on how it was worded. You couldn't refer to "The Senate" or "The House of Representatives" without running the risk of having that include ANY "Senate" or ANY "House of Representatives".

HOWEVER the real reason why the amendment would include term limits for State legislators would be because of a "___ you and the horse you rode in on" attitude on the part of the federal government.

PS - Since there has never been a "Constitutional Convention" how one is organized, what weight is given to the various state delegations, and how SPECIFICALLY binding such a "Constitutional Convention" would be as to the final wording of the actual constitutional amendment has never been determined. [For example, could a "Constitutional Convention" force the adoption of an amendment that was completely contrary to the constitution of the United States of America?]

That would be an issue for each individual State's constitution. I doubt any State would vote to give the federal government the power to reach into a State like that, especially when the point is to put limits on the federal government.

I agree that the states would likely NOT want to see term limits imposed on the State legislative branches, but, if it makes sense at a national level, then it also makes sense at a state level and once you have opened the floodgates slightly the water tends to push them wide open.

 

[Anthony60]

It would all depend on how it was worded. You couldn't refer to "The Senate" or "The House of Representatives" without running the risk of having that include ANY "Senate" or ANY "House of Representatives".

HOWEVER the real reason why the amendment would include term limits for State legislators would be because of a "___ you and the horse you rode in on" attitude on the part of the federal government.

PS - Since there has never been a "Constitutional Convention" how one is organized, what weight is given to the various state delegations, and how SPECIFICALLY binding such a "Constitutional Convention" would be as to the final wording of the actual constitutional amendment has never been determined. [For example, could a "Constitutional Convention" force the adoption of an amendment that was completely contrary to the constitution of the United States of America?]

I agree that the states would likely NOT want to see term limits imposed on the State legislative branches, but, if it makes sense at a national level, then it also makes sense at a state level and once you have opened the floodgates slightly the water tends to push them wide open.

I am not sure why you think such things would happen, it doesn't make any sense. All these things have been proposed and written clearly and specifically, so confusing State government with federal government is not an issue in any way at all.

Also, Article 5 provides for a convention of States in order to amend the Constitution, so that the States could still control the government that they created. And of course, by definition, any amendment would be Constitutional, as it then become part of the Constitution.

This should clear it up, from Article 5...

...the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I am not sure why you think such things would happen, it doesn't make any sense. All these things have been proposed and written clearly and specifically, so confusing State government with federal government is not an issue in any way at all.

Also, Article 5 provides for a convention of States in order to amend the Constitution, so that the States could still control the government that they created. And of course, by definition, any amendment would be Constitutional, as it then become part of the Constitution.

This should clear it up, from Article 5...

...the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified...

Since it has never been done, no one actually knows how it would work.

Ask yourself this question - "If there was a single word (or even a punctuation mark) that differed between the question put to each state, would the amendment actually be ratified?".

The answer is "Maybe yes, and maybe no." - it all depends on whether the people who control the courts would want to see it ratified.

 

[Maccabee]

Lincoln WAS a Republican. Most people don't know that.

Most people DO know that. The problem is the republican of that time isn't the republican of today.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Most people DO know that. The problem is the republican of that time isn't the republican of today.

That's OK the people who think that a "Republican" in Lincoln's day is identical with a "Republican" of today also think that there are no "dogs" in France, Germany, or Russia (only "chiens", "Hunde", and "собаки").