7 ms·

Does anyone know if this section of Missouri law has ever been challenged under the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude? It naivel

by mkehrt 10y ago

Does anyone know if this section of Missouri law has ever been challenged under the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude? It naively seems unlikely to me to survive. Or are there other precedents for forcing people to fill government roles?

williamscales 10y ago
Jury duty?
- mkehrt 10y ago
  Good point.
- vacri 10y ago
  Conscription. Edit: Weird that this is being voted down. Conscription is involuntary service by definition, and has been used by the US government within living memory.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    No idea why you are being voted down. This is 100% on point, and in fact, AFAIK, the main source of non-slavery legal precedent on the 13th amendment.
fatbird 10y ago
It's likely a condition of being called to the bar in Missouri that you agree to be assigned cases by the public defender's office, subject to judicial review or some other escape clause.
vkou 10y ago
Conscription is legal under the 13th Amendment. (As is apparently being pressed into building roadways.) If you can be compelled to fight in a war, it doesn't seem unreasonable that you can be compelled to serve as a public defender. The thirteenth amendment was never intended to remove any power to enslave by the state.
vacri 10y ago
You could give up being a lawyer. A slave can't give up being a slave.
- vkou 10y ago
  You can't give up being a military-age male, when it comes to the draft.
  - jeff_petersen 10y ago
    You can shoot yourself in the foot or try to be a conscientious objector, I suppose.
    - vkou 10y ago
      That's only because of policy - there is no legal backing for, or against it. The policy's only in place because there's no shortage of able-bodied men. Once things get grim enough, the army will take anyone. Towards the end of the second world war, the Germans were drafting children and old men.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > You can't give up being a military-age male, when it comes to the draft. Right, you can't quit the militia, as that term is understood in the interpretation of the Constitution, and there is an express Constitutional power of the federal government to call up the militia. OTOH, the existence of that express Constitutional power and the long-understood Constitutional meaning of "militia" means that military conscription isn't a good reference point for the Constitutionality of any other type of mandatory public service.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Amendments are supposed to change the Constitution. Why does the original document supercede the amendment? Why even have amendments, if the unamended document takes precedence?
DannyBee 10y ago
You'd lose pretty quickly. Supreme court precedent on this is actually pretty clear, and it comes down to "pretty much nothing but actual slavery is considered involuntary servitude". See, e.g, Arver v. United States (the involuntary military draft is not a 13th amendment violation). If the military draft is not a 13th amendment violation, i think you are going to have a pretty weak argument having to defend some guy in court is.
SmellTheGlove 10y ago
It's voluntary. He could have chosen not to join the State Bar. Actually, I'm a little surprised the governor keeps an active law license. I went inactive in my two states of licensure when I went back to tech.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Does anyone know if this section of Missouri law has ever been challenged under the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude? Being subject to the provision of law at issue is something people voluntarily accept when they apply for a license to practice law in the state, and for which they receive benefits not available to the general public in exchange. > Or are there other precedents for forcing people to fill government roles? Yes, specifically within the judicial system, even. See, e.g., jury duty, which does apply to the general citizenry.

by mkehrt 10y ago

williamscales 10y ago

Jury duty?

mkehrt 10y ago
Good point.
vacri 10y ago
Conscription. Edit: Weird that this is being voted down. Conscription is involuntary service by definition, and has been used by the US government within living memory.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  No idea why you are being voted down. This is 100% on point, and in fact, AFAIK, the main source of non-slavery legal precedent on the 13th amendment.

fatbird 10y ago

It's likely a condition of being called to the bar in Missouri that you agree to be assigned cases by the public defender's office, subject to judicial review or some other escape clause.

vkou 10y ago

Conscription is legal under the 13th Amendment. (As is apparently being pressed into building roadways.) If you can be compelled to fight in a war, it doesn't seem unreasonable that you can be compelled to serve as a public defender. The thirteenth amendment was never intended to remove any power to enslave by the state.

vacri 10y ago

You could give up being a lawyer. A slave can't give up being a slave.

vkou 10y ago
You can't give up being a military-age male, when it comes to the draft.
- jeff_petersen 10y ago
  You can shoot yourself in the foot or try to be a conscientious objector, I suppose.
  - vkou 10y ago
    That's only because of policy - there is no legal backing for, or against it. The policy's only in place because there's no shortage of able-bodied men. Once things get grim enough, the army will take anyone. Towards the end of the second world war, the Germans were drafting children and old men.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > You can't give up being a military-age male, when it comes to the draft. Right, you can't quit the militia, as that term is understood in the interpretation of the Constitution, and there is an express Constitutional power of the federal government to call up the militia. OTOH, the existence of that express Constitutional power and the long-understood Constitutional meaning of "militia" means that military conscription isn't a good reference point for the Constitutionality of any other type of mandatory public service.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Amendments are supposed to change the Constitution. Why does the original document supercede the amendment? Why even have amendments, if the unamended document takes precedence?

DannyBee 10y ago

You'd lose pretty quickly. Supreme court precedent on this is actually pretty clear, and it comes down to "pretty much nothing but actual slavery is considered involuntary servitude". See, e.g, Arver v. United States (the involuntary military draft is not a 13th amendment violation). If the military draft is not a 13th amendment violation, i think you are going to have a pretty weak argument having to defend some guy in court is.

SmellTheGlove 10y ago

It's voluntary. He could have chosen not to join the State Bar. Actually, I'm a little surprised the governor keeps an active law license. I went inactive in my two states of licensure when I went back to tech.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Does anyone know if this section of Missouri law has ever been challenged under the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude? Being subject to the provision of law at issue is something people voluntarily accept when they apply for a license to practice law in the state, and for which they receive benefits not available to the general public in exchange. > Or are there other precedents for forcing people to fill government roles? Yes, specifically within the judicial system, even. See, e.g., jury duty, which does apply to the general citizenry.