scottalmighty
New member
Amendment XIII to the U.S. Constitution states clearly that involuntary servitude may not exist in the United States:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It is also clearly stated in military law that no provision of the laws may violate the US Constitution. In addition, even if someone in a military command structure were to attempt to pass a regulation that would violate the Constitution, the action itself would be illegal because:
1 - No government official is above the Constitution, and therefore no military or civilian officer can pass a provision which supercedes its authority.
2 - All government officers (including military officers and enlisted personnel) swear or affirm an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In doing so, they are agreeing not to violate it. Passing a provision against it would therefore be a violation of their oath.
With these two facts (that involuntary servitude is illegal and that military law cannot violate the constitution) evident, is it not also evident that military enlistment (that is, enlistment for a set period of time) is unconstitutional?
You might try and argue that since it is voluntary at its onset, it doesn't violate the Thirteenth Amendment, but that argument doesn't hold up to a reasonable challenge.
Say, for example, I were to hire a butler, and sign a contract for his services for a period of 5 years. A year into our contract, however, he decided to quit. I would have no legal recourse to force him to continue to serve me, because it would constitute involuntary servitude. I could sue him for monetary damages, breech, etc., but I could not MAKE HIM continue to serve me.
While military enlistment is voluntary at its onset, an enlisted person cannot escape his servitude before his enlistment is up without facing administrative or criminal penalty. In light of this, the illusion of voluntary service evaporates, because it is entirely possible for a person who no longer voluntarily serves (let's say, 3 years into a 5 year enlistment) to be forced to continue to serve.
Remember, you cannot legally sell yourself into bondage under the Thirteenth Amendment.
So I ask: how does enlistment (or commission for a mandatory period) NOT violate the law?
According to some answers I'm getting, you can sell yourself into slavery. This is factually inaccurate.
I CANNOT MAKE THE BUTLER SERVE ME. I can make him pay back what I have lost, and I may be able to make him pay for some perceived damages going forward. But I cannot have in put into jail or otherwise criminally punished for breach.
The concept that if someone volunteers once that they are a continual volunteer is also vapid, because it is demonstrably false. If you were to ask a soldier currently in Afghanistan if he was serving voluntarily, and he said "no, I want to go home" he is at that VERY MOMENT an INVOLUNTARY SERVANT.
Do not be blinded by ignorance or patriotism. Be reasonable. Legally, reasonably, ANYONE serving who DOESN'T WANT TO is an INVOLUNTARY SERVANT.
Right or wrong?
And by the way, having "loop holes" that may or many not carry certain criminal penalties are not "ways out". They are punishments.
This wouldn't work anywhere but the military.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It is also clearly stated in military law that no provision of the laws may violate the US Constitution. In addition, even if someone in a military command structure were to attempt to pass a regulation that would violate the Constitution, the action itself would be illegal because:
1 - No government official is above the Constitution, and therefore no military or civilian officer can pass a provision which supercedes its authority.
2 - All government officers (including military officers and enlisted personnel) swear or affirm an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In doing so, they are agreeing not to violate it. Passing a provision against it would therefore be a violation of their oath.
With these two facts (that involuntary servitude is illegal and that military law cannot violate the constitution) evident, is it not also evident that military enlistment (that is, enlistment for a set period of time) is unconstitutional?
You might try and argue that since it is voluntary at its onset, it doesn't violate the Thirteenth Amendment, but that argument doesn't hold up to a reasonable challenge.
Say, for example, I were to hire a butler, and sign a contract for his services for a period of 5 years. A year into our contract, however, he decided to quit. I would have no legal recourse to force him to continue to serve me, because it would constitute involuntary servitude. I could sue him for monetary damages, breech, etc., but I could not MAKE HIM continue to serve me.
While military enlistment is voluntary at its onset, an enlisted person cannot escape his servitude before his enlistment is up without facing administrative or criminal penalty. In light of this, the illusion of voluntary service evaporates, because it is entirely possible for a person who no longer voluntarily serves (let's say, 3 years into a 5 year enlistment) to be forced to continue to serve.
Remember, you cannot legally sell yourself into bondage under the Thirteenth Amendment.
So I ask: how does enlistment (or commission for a mandatory period) NOT violate the law?
According to some answers I'm getting, you can sell yourself into slavery. This is factually inaccurate.
I CANNOT MAKE THE BUTLER SERVE ME. I can make him pay back what I have lost, and I may be able to make him pay for some perceived damages going forward. But I cannot have in put into jail or otherwise criminally punished for breach.
The concept that if someone volunteers once that they are a continual volunteer is also vapid, because it is demonstrably false. If you were to ask a soldier currently in Afghanistan if he was serving voluntarily, and he said "no, I want to go home" he is at that VERY MOMENT an INVOLUNTARY SERVANT.
Do not be blinded by ignorance or patriotism. Be reasonable. Legally, reasonably, ANYONE serving who DOESN'T WANT TO is an INVOLUNTARY SERVANT.
Right or wrong?
And by the way, having "loop holes" that may or many not carry certain criminal penalties are not "ways out". They are punishments.
This wouldn't work anywhere but the military.