Since the U.S. government is in the process of taking over (bailing out) the mortgage, insurance, investment, automobile, and airline industries anyway, maybe some of that “Community Service” will end up being working for those taken over (bailed out) companies for free.

“The federal government has decided that you will work for GM for free for six months. If you refuse, you can be barred from attending a college in the United States, or spend up to six months in jail, depending on the nature of the refusal.” (i.e., just quietly protesting against it vs. going to the local news station to make a news story out of it) “This is your required duty to be an American citizen.”

Great, where do I sign up? Oh, wait… they already signed it for me.

http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDAwZWM4OTRmYzRkYTZhMGY2MmRhNTM2MWI5OTJkNTM=

If we were truly the country that the Constitution says we are, this issue is none of Obama’s and the federal government’s business. There is nothing in the Constitution which suggests that the federal government should be involved in any way with education. But, we’ve been ignoring the Constitution for so long, it is the default position that the federal government is supposed to be involved in everything. In reality, it should be involved in very little of our everday life.

Soon, the federal government will be taking over even more of our lives. Then, every day will be just like the definition of socialism: Socialism is like spending every day in line at the DMV. My poor children. Poor us.

The 13th Amendment doesn’t need to be incorporated against the states through the 14th. It’s not like the original Bill of Rights that were recognized as only limiting federal power before 1868: it’s simply a blanket prohibition, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States…” It applies to the states by its own terms.

The 13th Amendment has been incorporated against the states for other things, but not this. I’m saying the Federal Government has a greater limitation placed upon it in by the US Constitution than the states do since the Federal Government is only granted specific powers by the US Constitution.

So, if this does get struck down on Constitutional grounds, the ruling might impact state and local programs depending on the reasoning Supreme Court used. If it reasons that the Federal Government cannot do this because of there is no enumerated power for it, the states may still enact an identical program. If the court reasons that the program is a violation of students’ 13th Amendment rights, then the states and municipalities would also be considered to violate the students’ rights if they enacted such a program, and hence would be barred from doing so by the ruling. (If not barred, at least it would provoke another valid challenge.)

So I’m not saying that I believe this, I’m saying that’s the lay of the land in terms of the law. My personal belief is that, where school attendance is compulsory, any service requirement imposed by a state or municipality is a violation of the 13th Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. I’m also the type who tends to believe very little in exceptions to constitutional limits on power, again putting me at odds with the current legal worldview.

Dave -

You’re quite right, I spoke inaccurately, and misspelled charters while I was at it. I’m 2-for-2!

Correct.

“…since states and municipalities draw their powers from their own constitutions/chartes.”

Incorrect in part. Local governments have the powers granted them in their organic documents and in state statute, so that is correct. However, state constitutions are not GRANTS of power like either the federal constitution or a city charter: they are limitations on INHERENT power, the unlimited sovereignty that the states, alone, inherited from Parliament upon independence. The federal government, and local governments, may only do that which they are authorized to do: the states, by contrast, may do anything that they are not forbidden to do, whether their own state constitutions or by valid federal law (the federal constitution, federal statute, a treaty, or federal administrative regulation).

I hope you are not saying that (you believe that) involuntary servitude does not apply to actions of states and municipalities.

There are two differings standards for Constitutional violations. For the states and municipalities, only those provisions of the Constitution that the court has held to be incorporated against the states apply, e.g. the First Amendment applies while Article I does not. As far as I know, there have been no successful challenges to a municipal or state program on those grounds.

For the Federal Government, any action must pass *all* restrictions in the Constitution as well as being included in one of the powers explicitly granted to the Federal Government. My argument for Obama’s proposal being unconstitutional as stated is that it would fail a 13th Amendment challenge because it is a conscription of labor that does not follow from an explicitly-stated responsibility of government, as the draft and jury service do. Only the Federal Government needs to draw its powers from language in the US Constitution, since states and municipalities draw their powers from their own constitutions/chartes.

I hope this helps clarify that a valid Constitutional challenge exists.