Involuntary Servitude

Involuntary Servitude is alive and well in the United States, even though the 13th amendment prohibits it. An offense of the 13th amendment has not been prosecuted since 1947. Did we forget we had this amendment?

At first it was added to the Constitution to outlaw slavery, but it was added to the constitution because many feared that if it wasn't it would be temporary. Oh but how we forget, I think this amendment has been trampled upon more than any other amendment in recent history.

One example of Involuntary Servitude might include Obamacare i.e., being forced to pay into an insurance system. Another example like it or not, is just about every child support case under the sun.
Don't get me wrong I don't disagree that every parent should work to benefit and raise their child every way possible. I do disagree that the court system refuses in many times to hear a case regarding actual facts in child custody cases, but they love to sentence you to child support. In most cases when it comes to child custody the man is forced to jump through hoops and prove himself worthy to a femnist child advocate, most of which have feminist political leanings or they themselves are a victim of domestic violence or had a child with a man that ran off.

Now I am not stating that this doesn't happen. It does happen, fine. But just because you have been victimized somehow does not make every case happen in the same light and it does not give you the right to victimize other men, women and children.

Once you have been sentenced to child support, the can take up to half of your income, right out of your paychecks and in some cases more. You will also be denied by the state if you need financial help if you are a child support obligee. They will steal your income tax returns. They will take your drivers license away and put you in jail. They will do nothing but treat you like a second class citizen and a criminal as long as their is a child support order against you. It makes things difficult even when looking for decent work.

Point is, Involuntary Servitude exists in many different forms, I have only used these two examples. I am sure there are many many more. I think it would benefit America greatly to defend this amendment and possibly even file some class action lawsuits in cases where it exists and get to the root of the problem which is this.

People who feel they have been victimized often feel that they have the moral authority to victimize somebody else and in most cases, they do act upon it and abuse it.

Thanks for reading.

en.wikipedia.org...

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "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 Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

The draft is involuntary servitude. Sign up or go to jail.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Thats actually a little bit different, though the laws have changed over the years. Though I agree with you in a sense, Involuntary Servitude is geared more towards financial slavery and not towards service to the country. Selective Service is acknowledging that you fall between the ages of 18-25, but it is not necessarily sending you to war unwillingly.

Originally the draft was used by the Union in the Civil War

Funny how your idea of involuntary servitude only applies to child support. Yet another man who couldn't use contraception, blames the system and the feminists, instead of taking responsiblity.

That is not involunatary servitude. And trying to paint child support as so is just desperate and sickening.

It is to imply that someone is working against their will. Having sex is not against your will.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Hey it takes two to tango. The female engages also. That shouldn't guarantee a free pass for the woman and not for the man or visa versa..

The government should butt out, they can not solve our problems for us, they can only aggravate our differences further.

What every happened to being self accountable?
It's a much better way of life.

Now just wanted to add that certain state and Federal Taxes could be considered involuntary servitude. I mean, you have seen how they spend our tax money against the will of the people. That arguably is another form of involuntary servitude.

Though I do agree that taxes are needed as long as they are spent responsibly.

But I am afraid self accountability and personal responsibility are a thing of the past.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


It doesn't grant a woman a free pass. It goes by whoever the child is in primary custody with. If the child is with the dad, the dad can file for child support from the mother.

I understand both sides of the child support argument though.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Yeah but there is no way for the dad to get primary custody without spending thousands of dollars and fighting tooth and nail in court. Even if you can prove that the mother is unfit the custody will automatically be granted to the mother and you will spend thousands of dollars in court and lawyer fees, multiple hearings and still may never get your day in court to present your case.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Yes, an individual has a right to hold himself accountable, and if HE doesn't want to pay child support, HE can make his OWN decision for HIMSELF to abstain.

Funny how weak males are still trying to pin it on women. Its unfortanate we don't figure this out until they have already bred.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I'm not pinning anything on the woman. It is the court system. Not the woman.

As a woman you should try to understand this. Most men want to do everything they can when it comes to their own children.

Now don't tell me you give a damn or the court gives a damn about my childs best interest. Because we both know thats a lie.

reply to post by nixie_nox


How does putting someone in a cage for not paying help the situation though? You can't acquire money in jail. And you can't be a parent in jail.

It's just sort of silly.

reply to post by RealSpoke


That was really my main point. It's not just the child support system either. But in the case of child support, they first financially cripple you. Then they make you out to be a dead beat or a criminal. They do nothing but stand in the way.

Having a child is not a crime last time I checked.

It is natural and to go against nature is to go against God.

Worst of all these laws separate families, they separate mothers and fathers from there own children. Not just child support laws but custody laws, which are separate cases by the way.

Suicide rates upon males and females coincide directly with child support and custody laws. A child who grows up without a birth mother or father is more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, depression etc.

Child Support also charges interest and often times the money does not even get to the mother.

It's all about money and a political agenda, they don't care about the interest of the child, the mother or you for that matter.

I will confess to not feeling a large amount of sympathy for men who end up having to pay child support. I have a younger brother who currently is, and it was the only thing which restrained his level of promiscuity, prior to the event.

I have also been celibate for five years, and at 35, expect to probably be for the rest of my life, at this point. The pathological hatred of men has become an institution within Western society; it is more or less normal for even ostensibly heterosexual women in our culture. Even if you find a woman from a different ethnic or cultural group, who is not a rabid misandrist, you will still find keeping her to cost a much larger amount of money than I have ever had access to.

The bottom line is that in both bacterial and social terms, there is no such thing as safe sex. Keep your pencil in your pocket. Loneliness might periodically cause a certain amount of misery, perhaps; but it is nowhere near as chronic as the level you will experience from the alternative.

reply to post by thehoneycomb
Isn't court ordered child support the last option? I mean, if you fathered a child, and voluntarily gave support, then court ordered never becomes an issue. Wouldn't court ordered child support be more punative in nature?

I admire your work, honeycomb, but I feel that you might be off the mark on this one.

beez

I can help you understand the legality of your post, first the 13th as you stated talks about involuntary servitude, and that is still law the key word is involuntary.

So lets move to the 14th this is where all the evil is that most have no clue about.
The 14th made slaves of all citizens, yes all citizens by their voluntary actions.
See the difference? We volunteer for this form of governance, we hear that we live in a democracy, and this is true thanks to our volunteering to do so, instead of the Constitutional guarantee of a republic.

How did you volunteer for this servitude? We did so by contract, such as a drivers license, SS card, taken benefits just to mention a few. But the biggest way we contract into this political society of democracy is with our vote. Voting is a crime many do not realize the harm they have done but to learn more about exactly what is going on read Treason by Design found here on ATS and on the Web.

For begin your studies in law and understand what has happened start with my thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

Yes, an individual has a right to hold himself accountable, and if HE doesn't want to pay child support, HE can make his OWN decision for HIMSELF to abstain.

Funny how weak males are still trying to pin it on women. Its unfortanate we don't figure this out until they have already bred.

edit on 17-2-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Funny how 40% of non-custodial moms are dead beats.

You guy's have to understand that child support is the crowning achievement of both branches of the Female Supremacist movement. Since the mid 1800's women wanted the right to force men to pay them to raise children.

In fact the first enforcers of Child Support in the USA was the KKK.

So of course every single female supremacist will go into a pathological rant to protect what they feel entitled to.

Technically Child Support could be constitutional. But the gal's wouldn't like that very much as it would require a criminal court proceedings(which have things called guaranteed council and Juries)*. So they have been spending since the 1900's getting child support into special courts where men can be denied a Lawyer and trial by Jury.

It is nothing more than a gendered version of Jim Crow. Are any here surprised that this poster doesn't want to lose her entitlements under John Crow?


Also to the Frau Fuhrers of the world: Since the modern Child Support system has been put into place: With the mandatory civil arrest law's(haha how unconstitutional do you have to get?): And mandatory civil asset seizure aka child support collection bandits: Compliance rates haven't changed at all.

The only thing that has changed is the complete decimation of marriage and coupling(see all the gal's freaking out about the "Peter Pan Syndrome"**). Keep acting like Southern Slave owners and history will repeat itself.


*
(The non-custodial parent would have to be found guilty of negligence or abandonment; but a trial by Jury would protect fathers who refuse to pay because the mother is abusing the children via parental alienation. Also a trial by Jury will make people think long and hard.)

**
(The term "Peter Pan Syndrome" is the end result of the epidemic level of narcissism among the lady folk in America. Since they view what is good for them is good for everyone[meaning they view society as an extension of themselves so are incapable of truly understanding how something good for them is detrimental to others], they are unable to understand how men have no desire to become financial slaves,+ how men want nothing to do with divorce, paternity fraud and the million and other blatant acts of misandry in our society)

reply to post by korathin


If I ever wanted to give anyone on ATS more stars for a post, it's yours.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Hey it takes two to tango. The female engages also. That shouldn't guarantee a free pass for the woman and not for the man or visa versa..

The government should butt out, they can not solve our problems for us, they can only aggravate our differences further.

What every happened to being self accountable?
It's a much better way of life.

You are right, it is part of the function of the Nanny State. But the idea of it is based on the fact that usually the woman takes care of the child and the man works outside the home. With the changing of mores, this has changed things a bit.

reply to post by korathin


That is a very wordy way of saying that the father should just be able to walk away and never support his child.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by korathin

 

That is a very wordy way of saying that the father should just be able to walk away and never support his child.

Obviously you didn't read my post. As such an action your describing would be an act of "abandonment"/Child negligence. And that would kick in:

13th Amendment
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
www.law.cornell.edu...

The problem is, people confuse "taking care of the kid's" with "bankrolling the ex".

Child Support doesn't belong to the Custodial Parent as their own personnel piggy bank.

By giving the non-custodial parent a chance to act on good faith, and within reason to take care of his/her child; society would greatly benefit from such a thing.