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.
“Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another”
You know, if this is all it required to violate the 13th, the income tax would be illegal. You’re going too far.
“No one makes us work as hard as we do to pay the tax rate we do—or even any taxes at all.”
I suppose we could all go live in the mountains, off the fat of the land. But in modern civilization, having an income is as close to necessary as any mode of living can possibly be. It’s not a matter of choice.
“What do you respond when the lib says ‘But we provide free legal services.’ ?? (Public defenders)”
That’s easy for me to answer. I don’t think that ever should have been considered a right (we got along fine for a LONG time without it). One more crappy public service we don’t need. Legal defense funds and other charities could handle it at least as well.
Individuals pay all taxes that exist. directly or indirectly. Not all taxes are payroll based. We have sales taxes, excise taxes and the like.
That was Reynolds vs United States.
“But we provide free legal services
Those services arguably are to protect rights codified in the Constitution (trial by jury etc.). Admittedly, such services have been extended to domains unrelated to the Constitution such as suing state Medicaid programs for coverage policies/decisions. But at least some such services are consistent with the SC’s finding that indigent clients are entitled to free counsel on grounds that without it, their right to a trial by jury is meaningless.
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.