How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].
That's because you have a habit of logical fallacy, among which is the tendency to define something with reference to the thing being defined.
You said it was a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property"... That is a declaration: prohibitions=abridgments. Now the 13th is a prohibition. It says slavery SHALL NOT exist, thereby PROHIBITING it. So, by your own unequivocal definition, the 13th, being a prohibition, MUST = abridgment.
You are the one that insists that all prohibitions are abridgments of "rights". Now here is a clear prohibition: neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Yet, you also say, "There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read." So, which assertion of yours is wrong?
You go on to try to explain your inconsistency with: "Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected." But the 13th A. is not a declaration of protection; it is a prohibition of an existing practice. If "anyone can read" it as a protection, why the need for the 14th A.?
That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.
How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].
That's because you have a habit of logical fallacy, among which is the tendency to define something with reference to the thing being defined.
Your unsupported opinion on my so-called 'logical fallacies' only makes your comments more redundant, and amusing.
Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.
"Article 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."
As we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
That is a declaration: prohibitions=abridgments.
Of course it is. How redundant of you.
Now the 13th is a prohibition. It says slavery SHALL NOT exist, thereby PROHIBITING it.
An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, -- does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.
So, by your own unequivocal definition, the 13th, being a prohibition, MUST = abridgment.
That I made such a "definition" is YOUR logical fallacy, not mine. -- Amusing try though; - good bafflegab.
If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.?
There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read. Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected.
You said " As we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property."...
You are the one that insists that all prohibitions are abridgments of "rights".
There you go again, repeating.. Sigh.
Now here is a clear prohibition: neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Yet, you also say, "There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read." So, which assertion of yours is wrong?
Neither.
You go on to try to explain your inconsistency with: "Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected." But the 13th A. is not a declaration of protection; it is a prohibition of an existing practice.
"That is a tautology." -- In your own words.
If "anyone can read" it as a protection, why the need for the 14th A.?
Read the eras history. The 13th was ratified in 1865. -- And the human rights of exslaves were completely ignored by the south. This necessitated the ratification of the 14th, which made clear that States were required to obey the "Law of the Land" as outlined in Article VI.