[ozb]

So, like compulsory jury duty and the draft, this would be directly against the 13th Amendment.

Then again, according to the Supreme Court, even forced, unpaid road duty (chain gangs anyone?) is an inherent power of the government, so maybe this is ok.

> In view of ancient usage and the unanimity of judicial opinion, it must be taken as settled that, unless restrained by some constitutional limitation, a state has inherent power to require every able-bodied man within its jurisdiction to labor for a reasonable time on public roads near his residence without direct compensation.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/328/

(spoiler alert: according to the ruling, the US Constitution, including Amendments, does not limit this power; and this is in fact cited as justification for upholding the draft)

[dataflow]

Do you have any reason to believe that amendment was ever intended to cover things like mandatory jury duty? Or are you advocating for reading the text verbatim with zero consideration of the context or history? That kind of reading impacts a lot more than this, and not entirely in a good way.

[ozb]

I think there are much better argument for mandatory jury duty, like the fact that it's an inherent and explicit part of the preexisting Constitution, and that was not explicitly repealed nor (as far as I know) considered.

But the Court chose not to use those arguments, perhaps because they are less absolute and don't apply as cleanly to the draft.

Personally, I think that jury duty as it is today (no real pay, sometimes very long trials, "hardship" completely at the discretion of the judge) is actually a substantive violation of the principles of liberty that the 13th Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution, notably the 5th Amendment) was meant to protect; (though I myself would likely enjoy actually being on a jury, and am fortunate that I can afford it/my work would likely pay).

And I don't think it would've been crazy to require an Amendment to institute a compulsory military draft, or better yet interpret the 13th Amendment to allow the draft (and jury duty) on narrower grounds but use it to better protect soldiers against various abuses inherent in the current military power structure and lack of exit option.

I do think that mandatory road duty is about as direct a violation of the purpose of the 13th Amendment as anything else the state could do. I think the (explicit) argument that the takings and due process clauses protect your money but not your labor is patently ridiculous.

[dataflow]

> I do think that mandatory road duty is about as direct a violation of the purpose of the 13th Amendment as anything else the state could do.

Let me make sure I'm getting this right. You're making a serious claim that if the state required you to, say, clean the road by your house every morning, you'd feel like your experience would rival those of 19th-century slaves? You genuinely think that was the kind of thing the amendment was written for and do not see a meaningful distinction between the two?

[samdoesnothing]

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Obviously the experience wouldn't rival one of a 19th century slave and nobody is making that claim. However, forced labor for no compensation is slavery, by definition.

[dataflow]

> Obviously the experience wouldn't rival one of a 19th century slave and nobody is making that claim.

This was literally the comment:

>> I do think that mandatory road duty is about as direct a violation of the purpose of the 13th Amendment as anything else the state could do.

The state could bring back 19th-century-style slavery, too. Wouldn't that be a more direct violation of the purpose of the amendment? Because eliminating that sort of thing was kinda the purpose of the amendment, no? The purpose of the amendment clearly wasn't to prevent the government from requiring you to maintain the road around your home... right?

This isn't my interpretation, I'm reading what you guys are writing as-is. You're trying to add more context and explanation that wasn't there, weakening (and frankly contradicting) their argument.

It's especially ironic given you're both simultaneously trying to read the amendment so blindly and disregarding the context or purpose (the original purpose emphatically was not to prevent you from having to do a bit of upkeep around your neighborhood), yet somehow you don't like it when your own writing is read literally?

[samdoesnothing]

Systematic widespread slavery is obviously different from using the threat or application of violence to compel unpaid labor in smaller-scale scenarios, but both are de facto slavery and both are direct violations of the amendment. If you wanna argue that there is a concept of a "lesser violation" and that it makes some forms of slavery OK, be my guest but even children don't buy arguments like that.

It's like trying to argue that a little murder is fine because really, the laws are set up to prevent mass murder.

[John23832]

> So, like compulsory jury duty and the draft, this would be directly against the 13th Amendment.

I'm pretty sure my Federal grand jury duty was compelled.

[ozb]

Yeah, I'm saying the Supreme Court is obviously wrong to allow it on the grounds that they do

[John23832]

Ah. Gotcha.