Enforcement Clause of the Thirteenth Amendment

[Emsworth]

The argument is an absurd one. Congress may act to prevent slavery an involuntary servitude, and nothing else.

But the Supreme Court disagrees, sadly. It was the Warren Court that established this line of reasoning. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., Justice Potter Stewart said, "the Thirteenth Amendment authorizes Congress not only to outlaw all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude, but also to eradicate the last vestiges and incidents of a society half slave and half free, by securing to all citizens, of every race and color, the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to inherit, purchase, lease, sell and convey property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." The entire argument, of course, ignores it is not the government, but a private party, that is suppsedly denying these "rights." The Constitution restricts the former, not the latter.

The decision in question was reached, I believe, 7-2, with Harlan and White dissenting. I might be astounded that such a broad majority would have endorsed the finding, but then again, this is the Warren Court that we are talking about.

[Emsworth]

They sometimes argue there would otherwise be no point to an enforcement clause.

I find that argument absurd. The point of the enforcement clause, as one might expect, is only to ensure the enforcement of clause 1 of the 13th Amendment: nothing more, nothing less. Clause 1 only prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude; Congress may only enforce that specific prohibition, for example by punishing those who force somebody into involuntary servitude.

Because racial discrimination is not banned by clause 1 of the Amendment, the enforcement power does not cover it. To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the plain and original meaning of the 13th Amendment.