Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzzeek | Hacker News Reader

> It's interesting that people who were subject to this sort of treatment created the constitution limiting the US govt.

> It's interesting that people who aren't subject to this sort of treatment are trying to change the constitution and give the govt more power.

You mean like, when the 13th amendment was passed to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude? Pesky "govt" now telling folks they can no longer own human beings as property, that kind of thing?

Not all government power is oppression. A huge ton of it is vital for basic human welfare. Simplistic assertions like "those who seek to change the consitution are trying to give the government more power and therefore obviously have not experienced real oppression" are not furthering the conversation productively.

View on HN

The 13th amendment abolished laws that had built up protecting slavery. It meant that the slave interests could no longer use the government to enforce what they wanted. It recognizes (does not grant) the right that we all have to not live as slaves, and requires the government to protect that right. It is an important protection from the use of government power to enforce the claims of slave owners.

Prior to this, various laws and judicial decisions (such as Dredd Scott) had made aiding fugitive slaves illegal, and had practically made slavery legal in all states regardless of the will of the people.

Surprisingly, slavery persisted even after the Civil War. Here is a powerful, true story of someone who was a slave around 1900:

https://www.amazon.com/Emancipation-Robert-Sadler-Twentieth-...

Slavery was enforced by the government prior to the 13th amendment. So no, its not a valid example of government increasing its power over the people, its an example of limiting its power.

That's the point of constitutional amendments: to limit the power of the government.

Slavery was enforced by the government prior to the 13th amendment. So no, its not a valid example of government increasing its power over the people, its an example of limiting its power.

The Bill of Rights was about limiting the power of the (federal) government, but subsequent Amendments have both increased and decreased the power of the government.

In the North the government had outlawed slavery prior the Civil War. in the South, the Amendment promulgated Lincoln's wartime decree freeing the slaves. The Amendment limited the power of the states to enforce slavery and enshrined the power of the federal government to ban slavery.

The 16th Amendment gave the government the power to levy an income tax. The 18th Amendment, i.e., Prohibition, gave the government the power to ban alcohol (until it was rescinded by the 21st Amendment).

Are you arguing that the 13th amendment was a positive right addition to government responsibilities?

If so, the main issue with slavery was that it was legal, not that it was rampant.

I'm arguing that changing the Constitution is not always a bad thing.

I think the example is backwards, because the 13th amendment restricted the government, not the people.

parent poster said "change the constitution", as though the original document represented perfection, when it clearly did not. they should have provided more specifics if they meant something more specific.

OP said "change the constitution and give the govt more power". It's clear that OP's point is to oppose things that erode freedom, not that the constitution represents perfection.

This is the text of the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Clearly gives the government power to ban slavery. It does not enshrine any rights in citizens, and indeed notes that involuntary servitude may still be imposed as criminal sanction.

The power to ban the legalization of slavery: it is eliminated a right from government to enforce a law.

Its not banning the practice of slavery but the promise of legally enforcing them.

It does restrict people from selling themselves into slavery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com