Posted on 03/18/2010 11:47:32 AM PDT by Talisker
Section 1 of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.
From Wiki: "Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount."
So my question is simple: If Obamacare requires that Americans work to make the money required to pay for their personal government healthcare bill - in other words, it is not a "normal" tax that is a percentage of earned income, but rather a mandatory bill for government services rendered, irrespective of income or wealth above a certain threshold - doesn't this mandatory government demand for set payment force a condition of involuntary servitude upon individual Americans?
It seems Obamacare fits this description exactly.
And it also seems that the 13th Amendment bans it directly.
If this is true, it seems to me that bringing attention to this point it would be a very powerful way to object to this Bill.
Logic would agree with you but then, why let a little truth stop a lot of SOCIALISM!!!
SCOTUS ruled in United States vs Reynolds that coercing a citizen to enter in to a contract (which is what a health insurance policy is) violates the “wheel of servitude” as defined by the 13th Amendment.
I like your thought process, but your interpretation would seriously impact tax policy and tax law.
when SCOTUS gets Heller and Kelo cases right I might trust them again. They also let McCain-Feingold pass and I am still salty about that.
>I like your thought process, but your interpretation would seriously impact tax policy and tax law.
Tax policy and law NEED to be impacted. The “progressive income tax” is, quite frankly, horrendous. A flat-rate, across the board, no-exemptions income tax would be both infinitely easier to file, but infinitely easier to prosecute for misfiling. The whole of the IRS could be dissolved into a tax-fraud division of the FBI.
Good catch, you could very well be right on this. Keep on it.
Greetings Talisker:
Yes. Is this a trick question?
Cheers,
OLA
In concept, the income tax violates the 13th amendment.
The income tax amendment made state sponsored slavery constitutional.
Socialism is slavery,that hasn`t stopped the progressives from pushing it onto the productive citizens of America thru garbage like the welfare system.
I don't think so. The key word here is "involuntary." No one makes us work as hard as we do to pay the tax rate we do--or even any taxes at all.
This bill--if I understand the premise correctly--would bill us regardless of our will to work and earn money.
bill us... you mean requiring us to purchase insurance?
Sort of, but those of “low income”, ie, the same people who wouldn’t pay income taxes,
get their insurance paid for.
Isn't United States vs Reynolds where Religious duty is not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment?
This has been my argument against government-controlled health care in the US for years - especially when debating those who consider health care a “right.”
I start with their premise of a service provided to them by someone else as a “right.”
Me: “So you think health care should be a ‘right,’ correct?”
Them: “Yes! People have a right to health care!”
Me: “Presumably, this health care is provided by people, correct, not merely machines which you can activate yourself, correct?”
Them: “Of course! There need to be doctors, nurses, etc...”
Me: “So you believe you have a right to command these doctors and nurses to provide you with a service?”
Them: “They would be paid, of course...”
Me: “Suppose they don’t like your pay schedule. Suppose they don’t view the pay as sufficient compensation for their overall efforts...?”
Them: “Well, we’d prohibit them from refusing to treat people. They’d have to treat people and they could not pick and choose...”
Me: “How ironic you use the word ‘pick.’ Because there is no difference between what you’re proposing and the actions of plantation owners following the Civil War. Just for your edification, there’s an amendment to the US Constitution that prohibits you from compelling people to provide you with a service when they don’t like the pay schedule. Maybe you want to read up on that. Oh, and by the way - the question of people being commanded to provide labor at a rate the employer finds favorable was pretty much settled in April, 1865. Might want to read up on that too.”
Them: At this point, my interlocutor goes ape-poop. Usually ballistic, like an ICBM. Oh, it is entertaining to observe...
The fundamental truth here is that:
1. No man has a “right” to the exertions of another. Period, full stop.
2. Health care requires the exertions of other people.
3. Therefore, there is no “right” to health care. Period, full stop.
4. People who want to argue this with liberals should also NB that the Democrats were on the side of slavery in the 1860’s as well, and it was the new Republican party who argued for the end of slavery then, too, so both Republicans and Democrats are being intellectually consistent over the centuries on the subject: the GOP against and the DNC for.
By that strict definition of servitude, then, having to pay taxes to support:
Any welfare program,
Social Security,
Medicare,
Medicaid,
violates the 13th Amendment.
I don’t know if this is an apt anology, but it has occurred to me that, just as an abused child may often grow up to be one who abuses others, possibly an enslaved/abused group could “grow up”/evolve to people who enslave others (or who wish to enslave others). Whereas one would think and hope that experienced wrongs would lead to empathy and to not perpetuating the wrongs, it appears that once someone has obtained enough power to repeat the abuse, that is exactly what they do. Maybe a reach, but as above, so below, what is true for an individual may be true for a group perhaps.
I love it and plan to use your argument! What do you respond when the lib says “But we provide free legal services.” ?? (Public defenders)
I like this line of reasoning.
Mark for following.
Tatt
All the States against this for budgetary reasons or whatever should declare ObamaCare null and void and immediately pass nullification ordinances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.