Enforcement Clause of the Thirteenth Amendment

[A18]

I've heard some people argue that the Thirteenth Amendment allows  Congress to enforce not just a ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, but also to outlaw private discrimination.

I think this is an absurd violation of the plain meaning rule. Your thoughts?

[Bono]

I've heard some people argue that the Thirteenth Amendment allows  Congress to enforce not just a ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, but also to outlaw private discrimination.

I think this is an absurd violation of the plain meaning rule. Your thoughts?

Good luck enfrocing such a ban.

[A18]

?

[Bono]

?

On privte discrimination.
If I want to reject a black person, I can come up with 7 perfectly good excuses that would make me free from such charges.

[A18]

Irrelevant to the constitutional principle.

[Blue Rectangle]

I've heard some people argue that the Thirteenth Amendment allows  Congress to enforce not just a ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, but also to outlaw private discrimination.

I think this is an absurd violation of the plain meaning rule. Your thoughts?

I've never heard of that interpretation, but yes, it sounds absurd.  Can you post some of their argument?

[A18]

When one private person refuses to sell a house to another person on racial grounds, that's not slavery, as any court has ever defined it. That's not involuntary servitude, as any court has ever defined.

But they argue Section 2 gives Congress sweeping power to eliminate all the "badges and vestiges and relics of slavery."

This, of course, is nonsense. The article gives Congress to enforce its provisions, not create new ones.

[Bono]

Irrelevant to the constitutional principle.

Someone forgot their sense of humour.

[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.

[A18]

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

[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.

[opebo]

Hah, you racists are hilarious.  Or would be if you weren't so close to re-imposing all of this nonsense.

[A18]

Can we get a function that allows us to delete posts in our own threads?

[opebo]

Can we get a function that allows us to delete posts in our own threads?

Your desire for censorship reminds me of the German nazi party.