The proper metaphor is practitioner-assisted involuntary euthanasia. The Supreme Court just unplugged the last power cord (nationwide injunctions). U.S. Constitution, 1788-2025. RIP, you had a good run.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
revisionist liberal nostalgia. the Constitution didn't die in 2025. the Constitution empowered slavery, uplifted landowners, blocked women from voting, never guaranteed healthcare, housing or bodily autonomy. the only difference is that the mask is gone.
The Constitution unquestionably empowered slavery (to take one example). The 13th Amendment expressly removed that empowerment. You may have heard of the 13th. There also was an amendment establishing women's right to vote. https://youtu.be/Zmvt7yFTtt8?si=bLcQp3CWNF6yC9DV
The decision to exploit prisoners for labor, particularly in Southern states, came from politicians, not the Constitution. As Kurt Gödel (sort of) pointed out, any axiomatic system sufficient to support a complete constitution will be inconsistent. I oppose U.S. prisons generally. 1/2
"Brother," although I generally oppose prisons and the prison industry, I would allow longer-term prison sentences in certain classes of cases, like (a) mass murder, (b) cannibalism, and (c) posting your opinion of a book without having read it or your opinion of a movie without having seen it. 2/2
Literally just read the words I wrote (screenshot). Nothing in the Constitution *requires* that prisoners be used for labor. What this language in the 13th reflects is the expectation (in the 1860s) that if you were lawfully imprisoned you could be required to do involuntary labor.
I believe I just demonstrated that I know what the 13th says--hence my comments about Southern politicians and opposing prisons. (My professional life requires that, inter alia, I know the Civil War Amendments.) But perhaps I was too optimistic to think you'd read my responses with any care. 1/2
It's certainly true that written protections don't mean anything if they're not enforced by action. (Kropotkin thought his writing would motivate action, but didn't think his writing was a substitute for action.)
Comments
Two different things entirely.
Far from perfect. It will be missed by you and I both.
It was authored by wealthy men, to serve wealthy men.
Maybe it's time to write a better document.
The whole forest, missed for a tree thats entirely in your head.
The rules established by the constituton have been abrogated.
And youre worrying about if previous versions of the doc were moral?
Wow.