Why do we need the 13th amendment if we have the emancipation procalmation?
832021
Because the Emancipation Proclamation might be nothing more than a publicity gimmick -- not truly authoritative law. A constitutional amendment is more authoritative than a President's decree. And more permanent.
28166
The Supreme Court has ruled that the draft is constitutional, though it did not really consider the 13th amendment very closely. All the opinion had to say about it was, "Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement (Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918))." The draft during peacetime was also upheld in an Appeals Court ruling during the Vietnam War, though the 13th amendment was not considered at all in the opinion. It is a fairly firmly established precedent in our judicial system that conscription is lawful. However, I would not say that it is impossible that such a claim would succeed. One possible argument against it is that it is inherent in Congress' right to "raise and support Armies" that it can conscript soldiers and the 13th amendment does not affect that right.
917595
There is an excellent and balanced article in Wikipedia.Com that answers your question in extensive detail - the web address is below.\n\nThe Reconstruction Acts were a series of laws adopted by Congress to finish the subjugation of the controlling society of the rebellious states. It went overboard - like the Congressional response to the 9/11 attacks, which has only served to unite Islam against the USA and to attempt subjugation of all American citizens, not just "terrorists."\n\nHere is what Chief Justice Salmon Chase was saying about Reconstruction in 1868 - 2 years into the Reconstruction period:\n\n"Congress was right in not limiting, by its reconstruction acts, the right of suffrage to whites; but wrong in the exclusion from suffrage of certain classes of citizens and all unable to take its prescribed retrospective oath, and wrong also in the establishment of despotic military governments for the States and in authorizing military commissions for the trial of civilians in time of peace. There should have been as little military government as possible; no military commissions; no classes excluded from suffrage; and no oath except one of faithful obedience and support to the Constitution and laws, and of sincere attachment to the constitutional Government of the United States."\n\nThank you for asking this great question - there are parallels to what is happening, or attempted, in the USA today.
169885
That seems like a lot, but it's really very little. The reason it's important to have them is that it is currently the only way a person convicted of a federal felony can get his/her civil rights restored. One may argue that felons shouldn't have their civil rights restored, but there are lots of kinds of felons, and a great deal of them pose little to no threat to the public.
1062119
I definitely feel that this needs to be addressed.  The 14th amendment was set in place to ensure that former slaves couldn't be striped of their citizenship rights.\n\nWell, we're past that point of our history and can see that a wave of people entering our country illegally are using this "loophole" to citizenship to be allowed to stay.  Once they bear a US citizen, it's harder to split up the family, because the US citizen cannot be deported.\n\nThis amendment ran it's course and needs to be changed.  Only children born to 2 legal citizens on US soil or abroad should be granted automatic citizenship.
865708
The 13th Amendment.  Here it is:\n\n\nAmendment XIII\nSection 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. \n\n\nSection 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
410475
Lincoln was not an abolitionist at first, but when Uncle Tom's Cabin was released, he believed it was wrong. He wasn't just upholding the law because then, it was not illegal to have slaves. The 13th Amendment wasn't made until after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.
703668
While a Constitution seems to be necessary, it is not sufficient by itself.  You need institutions that work too.
890765
The Constitution provides protection for people, even criminals in that there should be no "cruel and unsusual form of punishment." \n\nI believe in this wholeheartedly. It is in accordance with my Christian beliefs. Let us not become monsters ourselves when we deal with monsters.
676602
The 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the children of freed slaves from those who would try and claim (even after the Civil War) that blacks were still "property" or 3/5ths of a person. The 14 Amendment needs to be amended because way too many illegal immigrants are using it as a loophole for their anchor babies.
643752
Most definitely PRO.  The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and details the requirement for warrants.  Unfortunately, it has been assaulted for years in attempts to give the police more powers.
533969
In some states, ex-felons' voting rights are automatically restored, in some restoration of rights is a fairly simple process. However, in a few states (Florida, of example) it is a difficult and cumbersome process to even apply for restoration of franchise (right to vote).\n\nIt's a wide held opinion that, since the prison population is largely drawn from low income and minority people, who tend to vote Democratic and/or liberal, that Republicans/conservatives, favor placing obstacles in the path of such people casting ballots.\n\nHere is link to ACLU information on this issue:\nhttp://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/index.html
1056881
Not without an amendment.   Currently there is no protection of privacy as provided in the constitution. \n\nWhat we need is even just a well written LAW, there really is no need to make amendment.
503556
emancipation, couldn't really help you with the legal issuses,sorry. Check that site out. It might help you out!
486670
Article 7 relates to the ratification process for the US Constitution. While redundant now as it has been ratified, it is part of the historical record. It would also be more trouble than it is worth engaging in a constitutional amendment process to remove it.
877310
Many prefer security to freedom, becuase they don't ever attempt to utilize their freedoms, so they don't realize when they have lost them.\n\nI'm from New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. And I try to remind people that we only have those freedoms that we can defend. And we only have those rights we choose to fight for.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
989801
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.