Amendment XIII 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 jurisdiction.
Per Wikipedia:
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "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 jurisdiction."
While usually thought of in terms of slavery, per the "usegal.com" website . . .
Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another.Is this not what is happening to Apple? Apple is being forced through coercion (a court order) to work for another (the US Government).
Yes there are certain duties that have been held to be not included within the prohibition of the 13th Amendment, but they do not seem to apply here.
If Apple can be directed to aid the US Government, where is the limit to what the government can force anyone to do?
I would be interested if any of my attorney friends could shed light on why the 13th Amendment seems to be left out of the discussion. What am I missing?
5 comments:
An interesting comment. The federal government has already forced everyone to buy insurance or be fined. That feature of Obamacare was deemed Constitutional by the Roberts court.
Good point about government coercion, anon. But buying insurance is not performing a service... What the govt is doing to Apple (and I have no sympathy for Apple) goes way beyond purchasing something. That this does not seem to bother anyone would seem to be a concern tp people who value freedom.
This issue - in light of the Thirteen Amendment question - is simply not being properly addressed, particularly by Libertarians. In time, the narrow-minded (Attention Deficit Disordered) press may opt to gloss the entire matter to place more emphasis on the Presidential primary races. If the citizen privacy issue is argued before the Supreme Court, given the present complexion of the seated Justices, how do you feel the matter may be adjudicated? With Congress vowing to declare President Obama's next Supreme Court candidate's name as "dead on arrival," issues like "Apple" and the Thirteenth Amendment bestows the next Presidential election with added gravity. It will be interesting to see if the electorate will place more gravity on privacy issues or prefer to lean Socialistic and forfeit their Constitutional rights in favor of additional government freebees?
Finally someone is talking about this!
Judge Napolitano on Fox
If the Obama administration supported Apple on this issue, right wing talking heads such as Napolitano & other so called experts would be blasting Obama. And if Napolitano is such an expert on the law what's he doing on Fox? They pay more.
Post a Comment