5 ms·

By that argument, jury duty is slavery.

by akgerber 10y ago

clarkmoody 10y ago
Indeed. So is conscription.
- turc1656 10y ago
  It's not that obvious. At first I was inclined to agree with you but after some further thought I'm thinking the answer is actually that they are both not - and it's purely due to the constitution. In the case of jury duty, we have a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial constructed from impartial jurors. Based on both statutory and common law that predates the formation of the US, this has always meant a selection of peers that are compelled to serve their nation. Because it is defined within the constitution, it rests alongside the 13th amendment. To end compelled juries, the 13th amendment would have had to explicitly state the lack of exception for the jury trial, thereby effectively nullifying it without repealing it. That, or the 6th amendment would have to be repealed altogether and replaced with something else to ensure a manner of securing a fair jury trial. As for conscription, it's a similar situation. The constitution allows the government to "raise and support Armies" under article I section 8. This has been interpreted to mean the usage of the resources of the nation to build an army as approved by Congress. It can be money (taxes), land (eminent domain), or people (conscription). Again, because of historical precedent set in statutory and common law, as well as being included in the constitution, it has not been deemed to violate the 13th amendment and instead exists as another exemption. At least, that's my understanding.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > As for conscription, it's a similar situation. The constitution allows the government to "raise and support Armies" under article I section 8. This has been interpreted to mean the usage of the resources of the nation to build an army as approved by Congress. It can be money (taxes), land (eminent domain), or people (conscription). Conscription stems from the understanding of the militia as being universal and the express power of Congress to "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions", not from the power of Congress to "raise and support Armies".
- akgerber 10y ago
  A lot more folks are OK with jury duty than conscription, because it imposes a lot less on one's life, and the argument for its necessity to a just society is more convincing to many.

By that argument, jury duty is slavery.

clarkmoody 10y ago

Indeed. So is conscription.

turc1656 10y ago
It's not that obvious. At first I was inclined to agree with you but after some further thought I'm thinking the answer is actually that they are both not - and it's purely due to the constitution. In the case of jury duty, we have a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial constructed from impartial jurors. Based on both statutory and common law that predates the formation of the US, this has always meant a selection of peers that are compelled to serve their nation. Because it is defined within the constitution, it rests alongside the 13th amendment. To end compelled juries, the 13th amendment would have had to explicitly state the lack of exception for the jury trial, thereby effectively nullifying it without repealing it. That, or the 6th amendment would have to be repealed altogether and replaced with something else to ensure a manner of securing a fair jury trial. As for conscription, it's a similar situation. The constitution allows the government to "raise and support Armies" under article I section 8. This has been interpreted to mean the usage of the resources of the nation to build an army as approved by Congress. It can be money (taxes), land (eminent domain), or people (conscription). Again, because of historical precedent set in statutory and common law, as well as being included in the constitution, it has not been deemed to violate the 13th amendment and instead exists as another exemption. At least, that's my understanding.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > As for conscription, it's a similar situation. The constitution allows the government to "raise and support Armies" under article I section 8. This has been interpreted to mean the usage of the resources of the nation to build an army as approved by Congress. It can be money (taxes), land (eminent domain), or people (conscription). Conscription stems from the understanding of the militia as being universal and the express power of Congress to "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions", not from the power of Congress to "raise and support Armies".
akgerber 10y ago
A lot more folks are OK with jury duty than conscription, because it imposes a lot less on one's life, and the argument for its necessity to a just society is more convincing to many.