A modest Proposal

[randy]

If they really cared, they'd have gotten off their checkbooks, and sponsored some retired professionals with the assignment to rescue the girls and kill the kidnappers. But that would have required real money, and real effort, so that wasn't going to happen.

The sad part is that one of the first adopters of and biggest pimp for #bringbackourgirls had a husband that could have actually done that using active duty troops. I wouldn't have objected to using "retired" professionals for a little plausible deniability, but as it was we got a big fat nothing from the foremost advocate of "you just have look good, not be good" school of leadership.

[Windy Wilson]

IANAL, but I think you're allowed to make prisoners work.

As I recall, the Thirteenth Amendment requires a conviction before work can be required.
That might slow construction down a bit.

[Windy Wilson]

Exactly right. I have said it before, and some people didn't believe me. They WILL sue a church to demand they get married there. It is coming, although a mosque would be more fun.

It's like the case of the Global Warming TV Evangelists. I'll believe they are serious when they sue a mosque.

[MarkD]

My first thought on seeing the title was "Who we eating this time?"

I got that reference!!!!!

[Captain Wheelgun]

My first thought on seeing the title was "Who we eating this time?"

I got that reference!!!!!

Yep, you're pretty Swift.

[skb12172]

IANAL, but I think you're allowed to make prisoners work.

As I recall, the Thirteenth Amendment requires a conviction before work can be required.
That might slow construction down a bit.

It hasn't stopped Crazy Joe.

[Jered]

The left loves slavery, if only their kind of it: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... urt-rules/

I'd love to see that State Supreme Court perp-walked by the FBI. There's probably a fairly solid legal argument for it, too.


You might find this US Supreme Court ruling educational as to why.

Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 939-953.

Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property and services. This amendment was said in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, to have been intended primarily to abolish slavery as it had been previously known in this country, and that it equally forbade Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie trade when they amounted to slavery or involuntary servitude, and that the use of the word "servitude" was intended to prohibit the use of all forms of involuntary slavery, of whatever class or name.

Plessy v. Ferguson (Yeah. Not a good case, but, that's a good quote from it.)

[blackeagle603]

A sentence to work on a wall for those who enter illegally is slavery?

[Precision]

A sentence to work on a wall for those who enter illegally is slavery?

It can't be.
First if like in your example they are given a choice. Immediate 12 months hard time or 6 months hard labor I wouldn't think it a big deal, legally.

Second, they would have been convicted of a crime. Non-citizens do not get our legal rights so it could actually be a speedy non jury trial. Once convicted, how are they any different than any of the "chain gangs" that convicts BEG to be on, so they can be outside the fence.

[HTRN]

They WILL sue a church to demand they get married there. It is coming, although a mosque would be more fun.

It wont happen, that whole pesky " freedom of religion" issue with the first ammendment wont let them.