4 ms·

and for the people arguing over terminology... slavery is explicitly allowed in the constitution: [n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, as a punishm

• karaterobot 4y ago
  No, it's not. The Supreme Court settled that argument over a hundred years ago, in Bailey v. Alabama: > The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude. It may help to interpret the wording of the amendment like this: "Here is a list of two things which shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction: Number one is slavery, number two is involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a duly convicted crime)." And that's how SCOTUS appears to interpret it, which means that's de facto what it says.
  • johnday 4y ago
    > which means that's de facto what it says. ITYM that it's de jure what it says. de facto is the opposite.