California and Nevada voters will decide in November if they want to ban forced prison labor by removing language from their state constitutions rooted in the legacy of chattel slavery.
  • foggy@lemmy.world
    431·
    28 days ago

    It is sad that this will cause a legitimate argument about the constitution.

    • otterpop@lemmy.world
      152·
      28 days ago

      "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. "

      Unfortunately I think you’re right, the way the thirteenth amendment is written might make laws like this unconstitutional. What we really need is another amendment banning it entirely.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        9·
        28 days ago

        I see zero reason why this would make state laws about it unconstitutional. The constitution does not say it is mandatory for prison slave labor to exist, just that it could

        The US constitution not prohibiting something doesn’t mean a law or a state constitution can’t

      • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        28 days ago

        Why would it be unconstitutional? The amendment doesn’t require forced labor, it just allows it. States deciding to nix it as a “punishment” are fully in their rights.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          2·
          27 days ago

          You are correct but SCOTUS has zero respect for the Constitution when they’re paid not to, so who knows?

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        5·
        28 days ago

        How?? The language just makes something illegal. It’s not like the one that forced alcohol to be legal.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        52·
        28 days ago

        Honestly, we’d do better with an Article 5 constitution convention.

        The constitution was never meant to be something that was interpreted from the lens of when it was written. The Framers specifically made a way for states to rewrite the Constitution to adopt with the changing times.

        Edit: clarified my comment as it was a bit ambiguous

        • unmagical@lemmy.ml
          2·
          28 days ago

          The constitution was never meant to be a living document.

          See the 27 amendments and the process laid out in Article V for actually changing the damn thing. I think it’s weird you referenced the literal part about how to amend it and came to the conclusion that it wasn’t supposed to be amended. Just cause politicians have given up on their duties to work for the general populous doesn’t mean the document wasn’t meant to change.

          Edit: previous author rewrote and clarified their meaning.

          • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            2·
            28 days ago

            I’m going to edit my comment to be a bit clearer but the Framers knew that the Constitution wasn’t meant for all time, that the document would need to be rewritten to reflect the changing values and issues in the present age. The easiest example is the third amendment. While it’s important, yes, that we not be required to quarter troops in our homes, it isn’t exactly the main issue facing us as a nation.

            Fucking conservative judges, however, seem to think that the “history and culture” of the document should trump whatever issue is going on now.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      6·
      27 days ago

      It’s still legal to have punitive slavery. There is a carve out in the amendment. It is repugnant. We need a 28th amendment declaring an end to all slavery.