299
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

That's good. Prison Labour is modern slavery

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

It's still legal to have punitive slavery. There is a carve out in the amendment. It is repugnant. We need a 28th amendment declaring an end to all slavery.

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago

California and Nevada finally contemplate an end to slavery

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

Looking forward to when GEO Group v. State of California reaches an outrageously corrupt SCOTUS.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Bet it gets veto. They just made homelessness illegal so they about to fill shit ton of for profit prisons.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

Its a proposition so they cant veto it without another proposition.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago

It is sad that this will cause a legitimate argument about the constitution.

[-] otterpop@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

"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. "

Unfortunately I think you're right, the way the thirteenth amendment is written might make laws like this unconstitutional. What we really need is another amendment banning it entirely.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 18 points 1 day ago

Why would it be unconstitutional? The amendment doesn't require forced labor, it just allows it. States deciding to nix it as a "punishment" are fully in their rights.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

You are correct but SCOTUS has zero respect for the Constitution when they're paid not to, so who knows?

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

I see zero reason why this would make state laws about it unconstitutional. The constitution does not say it is mandatory for prison slave labor to exist, just that it could

The US constitution not prohibiting something doesn't mean a law or a state constitution can't

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

How?? The language just makes something illegal. It's not like the one that forced alcohol to be legal.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Honestly, we'd do better with an Article 5 constitution convention.

The constitution was never meant to be something that was interpreted from the lens of when it was written. The Framers specifically made a way for states to rewrite the Constitution to adopt with the changing times.

Edit: clarified my comment as it was a bit ambiguous

[-] unmagical@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

~~The constitution was never meant to be a living document.~~

~~See the 27 amendments and the process laid out in Article V for actually changing the damn thing. I think it's weird you referenced the literal part about how to amend it and came to the conclusion that it wasn't supposed to be amended. Just cause politicians have given up on their duties to work for the general populous doesn't mean the document wasn't meant to change.~~

Edit: previous author rewrote and clarified their meaning.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

What do you mean never meant to be a living document?

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

I'm going to edit my comment to be a bit clearer but the Framers knew that the Constitution wasn't meant for all time, that the document would need to be rewritten to reflect the changing values and issues in the present age. The easiest example is the third amendment. While it's important, yes, that we not be required to quarter troops in our homes, it isn't exactly the main issue facing us as a nation.

Fucking conservative judges, however, seem to think that the "history and culture" of the document should trump whatever issue is going on now.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

Ah thanks for the clarification

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

they enslaved people to move unknown bodies from “Negro Hill Cemetery?”? The fuck..?

[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

While at it, ban profits from prisons.

Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Associated Press:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://apnews.com/article/california-nevada-forced-labor-slavery-ban-measure-43253e64726ced58050eeb2e553b6708
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
299 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3172 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS