Slavery And Involuntary Servitude in America

It is a common conception in the US that slavery is outlawed in the US with the passing of the 13th amendment. It was, after all, what the Civil War and Republicans were supposedly fighting over. But there is something interesting that comes about when we look at the 13th amendment and the 5th amendment.

The 13th Amendment says:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 5th Amendment says:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

It should be clear that if due processes of law is being applied to you, then the outcome of it could be of you become a slave, or involuntary servant, of the federal government. But this would also, by the  14th amendments application, hold with the states. Thus, both the federal government and state governments still allow for slavery or involuntary servitude, but this applies only to the class of people who were convicted under due process of law. This means that those people in jails are the slaves or servants of the government. You do what the government tells you, when the government tells you,  and how the government tells you. The government is now their master and they are now the governments slave or servant.

Those shows on MSNBC about what happens in some jails in the US, those prisoner guards are looking after and keeping in line the slaves of either the Federal governments slaves or servants or the State governments slaves or servants. The US has also risen to one of the countries with the most prisoners, i.e. slaves, in the world. We even, it appears, have more slaves than a communist nation like China or former communist nation like Russia.

Now say what you want, it is interesting whether you look at it as the people in jail, i.e. prisoners, are slaves/servants of the government or if you look at it as the people in jail, i.e. prisoners, are slaves/servants of the American people. Since it is “We the People” who run the government or are in charge of the government, then those are our slaves or servants. Which of these stands out more, that American Citizens become property of the government or the American Citizens become slaves of the People, or even property of the People?

Slavery, or serfdom, have not left America. But what is interesting is how some private corporations have moved in to taking care of the slaves of the federal or state governments, or taking care of the People’s slaves or property. The American government, or state government, pay private corporations to take care of their private property, which happen to be other human beings. What is even more interesting is that the American government happens to turn more black people into slaves than they do white people, at least based on the racial make up of jails in the US. So the 13th amendment gave “private citizens” slaves freedom, and yet the Federal government was still in the business of slavery and helped to make those who are decedents of the freed slaves to become slaves of the government instead of another private citizen.




Petition for Texas to Secede from United States

Here is an interesting petition to the White House.

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

The petition was started on November 9th, 2012, and as of November 12th, 2012, it has 48,335 signatures. Petitions have the necessary requirement to meet the signature threshold, which is 25,000 signatures as of when the petition was created. The signature threshold had to have been met by December 9th, 2012 to have a response from the White House. There would be some policy study done by the White House into the consequences of accepting the proposal of the petition.

Whatever anyone thinks of this petition, whether it is right or wrong, has no bearing on an analysis of the situation.

We already know what happened the last time a state, or some states, tried to secede from the Union, or the United States. This was known as the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America. This ended up being known as the Civil War, and the Confederacy ended up losing. This was a huge costly war, both economically, socially, and numerical causalities. It also tore into the American psyche, in some sense. So we have at least one example of when multiple states seceded from the Union. They happened to build their own Confederacy of States like one before founding of new government with US Constitution, i.e. Articles of Confederation.

What is interesting is that Texas was part of those states that seceded from the Union in 1860 to join the Confederate States of America. So Texas has a previous history of seceding from the Union. Texas also seceded from the Mexico, or revolted against the Mexican government. After Texas won its freedom from Mexico, they were an independent nation and eventually did join the Union or the United States of America, and later seceded to join the Confederate States of America.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, and shortly thereafter, some other states seceded from the Union. Now what is interesting is that the first state to secede from the Union was also the first state that “fired the first shot” to start the Civil War. History supposedly has it that the first state to secede from the Union started the Civil War. But let us assume that it is true that Texas does secede from the Union, then would it be true that it would be violent?

First, this brings up an interesting question about the state militia. The state militia responds to the orders of the Governor of the state, which happens to be Rick Perry. But, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief, and so can take control of the state militia, i.e. national guard. This brings up interesting potential conflict in this situation, even though the line is clear with US soldiers that are non-national guard. These soldiers would be Union troops. With this in mind, it would appear that the United States would be able to, numerically, beat the Texas national guard in any potential military conflict. This is not assuming that other civilians in Texas join to swell the ranks of the Texas state militia, or national guard. But the US population is greater than that of Texas, and so the US can possibly gain more troops than Texas. A military conflict does not seem to be reasonable for Texas to want or to go through, let alone of the US. So Texas seems to have no incentive to want to have a military conflict.

Second, this brings up an interesting question about how would the President respond. Would the President take military action, since the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, which means not even Congress? Texas would, in a sense, be at the mercy of the President choosing to go through a 30 day war, until President goes before the Congress to ask for a deceleration of war or money to continue to finance military actions (like Iraq and Afghanistan). Texas would appear to be at the mercy of the Presidents decision, since US appears to have greater military power relative to Texas.

Assuming that it is true that Texas secedes from the Union, then Texas would not have a violent secession (like South Carolina). But assuming that it is true that Texas does not have a violent secession (like South Carolina), then would the President take military action or no military action? This is a decision for the President to make. The US or Union would appear to have more of an incentive for violence than Texas.

Now the person brings up some main ideas with secession, and one of them is economic. It points out that the state of Texas, on its own, has the 15th largest economy in the world. So Texas would have some economic power or stability. Being part of a Union with other states, the problems of one state affects another state. One consequence is standard of living. Texas could have a high standard of living, but other states in the Union have a low standard of living, so this comes to affect the state, and people, of Texas. Texas would appear to be able to economically compete with other foreign nations. But the loss of Texas would also mean that it affects the economy of the US, or the Union. The Union would lose a major money maker for the US economy and for other poorer states and people in other states.

Another main idea for secession that the person brings up is civil liberties. They specifically state the NDAA, which I am assuming that they mean the portion of “indefinite detention”. This issue has actually gone to federal court and an Obama appointed judge said it was unconstitutional, but the Obama administration is appealing this decision. One of the main problems is that this is a violation of the 4th amendment, which is protection from the federal government and thus a civil liberty. The government would, and by the Patriot Act, are still allowed to for unconstitutional search and seizure of people and their property. You also have the President having deprived people of their 5th amendment right by being deprived of life or liberty without due processes.

So there are at least two arguments for secession. There is the economic point of view and there is the civil liberty point of view.

One thing that should be made aware is what happened with the Confederate States of America. One state left and others followed. California might be one state to take a look about secession if we accept the economic argument (since they supposedly have around the 9th largest economy in the world), and the civil liberty argument would apply to California as well. For example, the civil liberty argument applies to all states in the United States, or Union. But the economic argument would not apply to all states in the United States. Some states benefit from more economically powerful states being in the Union. Weak economic states benefit from being in a union with strong economic states, but it hurts the strong economic states, in some respects.







Repeal of the 5th Amendment

“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 5th Amendment

I want to tell you all a story. There once was a country which was a country which fought two wars, and declared those wars over and went on to occupy those foreign nations with military personal. These occupying military force was constantly being attacked, and the media showed images, and told stories of, what was going on in those foreign nations. Many people came to dislike this situation and wanted to bring the troops back home.

These wars were going on with Commander-In-Chief’s permission. This CIC was known for violating people’s civil liberties, i.e. activities that citizens are protected from the governments interference, and torturing people. This CIC would use the Patriot Act, which repealed the 4th amendment. People did not like the occupations of other nations and with the violation of people’s civil liberties.

So someone ran to be CIC, and they promised to change the way things were done. They promised to bring all of our military personal occupying those foreign nations back home. They even promised to repeal the Patriot Act by letting it expire, they promised to repeal the repeal of the 4th amendment. But, sadly, this person who ran on Hope and Change, eventually succumbed to doing the same things, but taking it one step further.

This person who talked like a Dove ended up being a Hawk. This person continues the repeal of the 4th amendment and takes it further than his predecessor. Than, once he has taken away that civil liberty and exercises violation of people’s civil liberties with the seizing your property and body without judicial oversight, they can now kill you without judicial oversight. This is what has happened as of late with the CIC exercising this power, and it being front page news a major news outlet.

It is surprising how people do not talk about this much. Probably not talking about it much because this CIC will continue his predecessors tactics of having reporters arrested who report on events they don’t like. What makes it interesting is that we now have someone with the power to seize your body without judicial oversight and they can kill you without judicial oversight. It has gotten so bad that the CIC has a list of people on which either one of these things would happen to. This appears to be some of those powers in which the founders warned against.

Interesting how someone runs to restore your protected civil liberties, but instead takes another one of your civil liberties and intensifies the degree of violation of your civil liberties. This is the person that many people personally look upon favorably.

Republican Party 2012 Platform and “Abortion”

There are some stories going around as of late that deals with abortion. This more specifically deals with what the Republican Party’s 2012 Platform has to say, or more like does not say, on the issue of abortion. Now let us take a look at what the Republican Party 2012 platform supposedly says on this issue.

“Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

Now here are those “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Deceleration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But now let us take a look at the 14th amendment, which applies to the States of the US.

“No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

But now let us take a look at the 5th amendment, which applies to the Federal government of the US.

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Both of these amendments happen to be known as the Due Processes Clause, one applies to the Federal government and the other applies to the State governments.

Now we have to keep in mind that the Republicans have in mind that a persons life starts after the egg has been fertilized by a sperm. Whether you agree with this point or not is irrelevant to the view itself. So this will not be about the potential correctness, or potential incorrectness, about the view of a person starting when an egg has been fertilized by an a sperm.

Now there have been some complaints that having a personhood amendment added to the Constitution that involves this view of it would outlaw abortions, period, especially in cases of rape and incest. Now let us take a look and see if this would follow, or at all.

Now when we someone is executed by the State, this is the state taking action to end the life of another person. But this was done because of due processes. The person was deprived of life, which are protected against infringement from other individuals, the state government, and federal government, by going through due processes. They had their day in court, and evidence was presented to the judge, and a jury was brought about and reviewed the evidence on the case to see if the defendant should be deprived of life. The jury comes up with their verdict and the judge comes up with the sentencing.

Now the personhood idea, which has a fertilized egg as a life, means that this person shall not be deprived of life unless goes through due processes. This does not say that abortion is not allowed, because abortion, under this view, would be similar to killing someone who murdered a family of five, i.e. would go through due processes. This especially does not mean that abortion will not be allowed even under cases of incest and rape. All it says is that a person has a right to life unless they go through due processes to take the life of this person, intentionally.

Take Texas for example, they are a state that exercises the 14th amendment by depriving someone of their life by going through the processes of due processes. Texas holds a trial on the crime that this person supposedly committed, and a jury is convened to hear the evidence. If the jury finds that the allegations of a crime are meet with the necessary evidence to convince them that the crime was committed by that individual, then that person is found guilty and the judge orders the convicted criminal to have themselves deprived of life by the order of the state. It is through trial or going before a state judge that a person is deprived of their life, as is to be followed by the US Constitution, which applies to the Federal level with the 5th amendment itself.

The Republicans are saying: (1) A fertilized egg is legally a person and so has inherent rights that apply to them, i.e. Bill of Rights., (2) The states will determine the due processes that it takes if one is to deprive that person of their life. So the people of the state will decide what the processes would be in which to decide if that person is to be deprived of life.

The people of that state would probably even serve on a jury to decide the case of depriving that person of life or not. This way the state of California can come up with one due processes in deciding on depriving that person of life, and the state of Hawaii can decide on a different way of due processes on depriving that person of that life. In other words, one may get an abortion at state X, while not at state Y, because state X allows for that person to be deprived of life. You also have the freedom to travel to which state you would like if you would want to have that person deprived of life in a legal manner, like you would with someone who is going to get the death penalty. Different states can come up with their own processes, and so there is a variety of views and places of where it may be, and also some places in which it may not be. One view is not forced on all states, but only those states who self-govern to have that law are it forced on. And if you do not like that law, then you may move to where that law is not holden to. You may even change laws through grass-roots exercising of first amendment to peacefully assemble and petition representative with grievances. This way you are protecting against the tyranny of the majority.

Now if someone where to come on to your private property uninvited, or even enter your private property uninvited, you cannot just shoot them or kill them, especially when they do not pose immediate danger to your own life. But now if you did invite someone on to your private property, or even your private property, you bear responsibility for your choice of letting that person onto your private property or entering your private property.

But also take it that the person did not choose to be brought to your private property, or into your private property. The circumstances from which they arrived in your private property where not of their making. Instead, they were the making of your choosing, or not choosing. But for them having no say in how they came about or them occupying your private property, you still want to deprive them of their life that they did not even ask for or circumstances that they asked for. You would want to deprive them of their rights when they had no choice in the circumstances of them coming about or where they occupy.

This has nothing to say about birth control, since birth control is pregnancy prevention, or “Person-Prevention”, instruments. They prevent the necessary condition of a sperm fertilizing an egg from happening. The whole point is to not even allow for fertilization to happen. So there is no person in existence which you would be depriving of life without due processes. There is no fertilized egg to begin with, so there is no person to begin with. No person was harmed in the making of this.