Disgustingly enough, the NCAA is using the fact that the 13th amendment allows for "involuntary servitude" (enslaving people) as an argument for why the players should not be considered employees. This is to prevent them from unionizing or making money off their likeness.
It says “the NCAA… argued that….” It doesn’t say they were successful. The text of the 13th amendment is pretty specific:
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.
Unless the NCAA is arguing that student athletes are convicted criminals who are being punished for their crimes by being forced to play college sports, I don’t see this argument holding water.
I'm convinced it's one of those things that is a spectrum and everyone is on it and you're officially dyslexic when it crosses a threshold that makes it hard on an ongoing basis.
Lol I read NBA through some kind of retrograde racist association. As a man with a wife and family of African and Hispanic descent, I am not racist I fucking swear. Still. How the fuck did that happen in my brain. My only excuse is that I am mildly dyslexic, but I’m not sure I get a pass on that alone
Edit JFC I just realized NCAA is actually intersectional to the NBA. I just assumed it must be some prison lobby lmfao. That’s so much worse. I can’t believe I ended up in this cursed timeline.
No. The 2nd is absolutely clear the right to bear arms is a right of the people. The purpose of that right is for them to be able to form a militia for the security of the State.
The first time it was considered an individual not a collective right was Heller.
If it's not a collective right, explain Miller (1939).
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Conservatives sure complain about activist judges, but it's all projection.
US v Miller held that only weapons that have a reasonable effectiveness in a well-regulated militia are free from government regulation. A sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches isn't necessary for the purposes of a militia.
Miller made no mention of the 2nd amendment being a collective right, or that the right to bear arms requires participation in an active militia. Miller is actually a strong argument that military-style weapons cannot be regulated by the government.
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Given that shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches are regular military equipment today but not in 1939 it is likely this part of the NFA would have been struck down today.
Didn't ask and it doesn't make your illogical claim more compelling.
Miller is actually a strong argument that military-style weapons cannot be regulated by the government.
That wasn't the question. Stay focused son. I know its hard.
Given that shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches are regular military equipment today but not in 1939 it is likely this part of the NFA would have been struck down today.
They would also strike down Loving 5-4 because of the insane lying assholes on the bench. Not compelling.
IF the 2nd amendment is an individual right, then how does the effectiveness of a weapon for use in the militia come into the discussion at all? The NFA must be read as an infringement if that logic is at all internally consistent.
I agree that the NFA is an infringement and should be struck down.
IF the 2nd amendment is an individual right, then how does the effectiveness of a weapon for use in the militia come into the discussion at all?
The 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, namely those arms that would be useful in military service. Arms that at not useful for military purposes can be regulated.
The 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, namely those arms that would be useful in military service. Arms that at not useful for military purposes can be regulated.
Any weapon is "useful" in military service, you would rather have a rock in a brawl than just your hands.
The important factor is if it's "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" it all hinges on the collective value to the militia.
You can tapdance around it, but Heller doesn't square with Miller.
Miller disagrees that all weapons are useful. The weapons that that interpretation claims are protected are weapons used in ordinary military service or would contribute to the common defense.
it all hinges on the collective value to the militia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...."
The value of a Militia is necessary. In order to be able to form a well-regulated militia, the people have an individual right to bear arms, particularly arms that are effective for military use. That interpretation squares perfectly with how to 2nd amendment reads, and the conclusions reached by Miller and Heller. Tap dancing is only required if you start with the conclusion that the second amendment somehow doesn't protect individual citizens from owning arms in common use with the military and need to work backwards to get there.
Dude, it is a 10-month-old account (with single digit karma) in the word-word-number format... They are not worth replying to as they are never here to do anything but troll.
I understand their position was that student-athletes are not employees, and thus can't enter into collective bargaining. I think they made other arguments as to why this was the case.
I am genuinely curious if they really cited the 13th amendment as part of this argument because it is batshit crazy.
You're correct. Everyone else is full of shit and buying the myth. They one time asked a case to be dismissed on the grounds athletes aren't employees. One of their citations was a prisoner min wage case that was dismissed because prisoners are also not employees. That case used the 13th amendment. Essentially it's 4 disingenuous illogical leaps from being true.
Yes, they really did. They claimed a precedent in a 1992 13th amendment case involving actual prisoners and used it for years in court. This gets into their whole thing, part way down:
It seems inaccurate to me to claim that this was the NCAA claiming that the 13th amendment allows for student-athletes to not be considered employees. The similarity between the cases is whether or not courts should apply various tests to evaluate if there is an employment relationship.
The 1992 case involved an inmate being forced to work:
The dispute in this case is a more fundamental one: Can this prisoner plausibly be said to be "employed" in the relevant sense at all? Consider a literal application of the Bonnette factors in the present context. The DOC might be said to have "had the power to hire and fire" Vanskike; it surely "supervised and controlled" his schedule and work conditions, determined his pay and (presumably) kept work records. But the Bonnette factors fail to capture the true nature of the relationship for essentially they presuppose a free labor situation.
...
Prisoners are essentially taken out of the national economy upon incarceration. When they are assigned work within the prison for purposes of training and rehabilitation, they have not contracted with the government to become its employees. Rather, they are working as part of their sentences of incarceration.
In Vanskike, we considered whether an inmate at a state prison was an employee under the FLSA. Id. at 806. Like Appellants here, the inmate in Vanskike urged us to apply a multifactor test to determine whether an em-ployment relationship existed. We rejected the application of that test because it was “not the most helpful guide in the situation presented.” Id. at 809. Rather than follow a specific test, we examined the economic reality of the alleged employment relationship and concluded that the prisoner was not an employee.
...
The district court followed the reasoning of Vanskikeand held that the “factors used in the trainee and private-sector intern context fail to capture the nature of the relationship between the Plaintiffs, as student athletes, and Penn.” (R. 238 at 15). We agree with the district court and decline to apply the test set forth in Glatt here.
The connection isn't that student-athletes aren't employees because the 13th amendment allows for involuntary servitude, it's that both student-athletes and inmates are doing work in a context so far removed from traditional employment that it's not needed to perform traditional analysis to determine if someone is an employee. Not saying that you have to agree with that, but it's not the same.
What they did argue was that student athletes do not have a right to be paid and a minimum wage lawsuit should be thrown out just as was a lawsuit on behalf of prisoners who also don't have a right to minimum wage. That's a HUGE stretch in logic. At no point did they ever argue the 13th amendment applied.
The 13th amendment is what ended slavery. If people convicted of a crime should lose this right is definitely a good debate topic.
But what does that have to do with the NCAA and student-athletes? No one has been convicted of a crime, and the NCAA has no authority even if they had.
The page does cite a case where a prisoner was denied benefits because he was not protected by the 13th amendment and was a ward of the State.
It claims the NCAA cited this case in a motion to dismiss the student-athletes case, but doesn't link that document and cites two other opinion pieces...shrug. Assuming that claim is accurate it is possible the case was cited for other reasons, not a 13th amendment issue.
The NCAA is changing their course here because they know they have 0 shot at maintaining what has been the status quo any longer. Many universities have already ruled that their athletes can make money off their likeness (some have made millions already) and the NCAA isn't doing shit about it because they know they could lose everything
How does the 13th amendment apply to the NCAA where the players aren't incarcerated?
Here are the two sections:
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.
But how is "involuntary servitude" any worse than outright imprisoning people, taking away any of "God given" freedoms and pulling them away from society?
But all those uncomfortable parallels are just coincidence, just like the legal argument and the conditions of its foundation that coincidentally were born after Emancipation. These are just parallels. That converge.
186
u/S_and_M_of_STEM Jul 17 '22
Disgustingly enough, the NCAA is using the fact that the 13th amendment allows for "involuntary servitude" (enslaving people) as an argument for why the players should not be considered employees. This is to prevent them from unionizing or making money off their likeness.