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.
1 Cor. 7:23:
"You were bought at
a price; do not become slaves of men."
Cor. 7:23, Bible, NKJV]
"Do you not know that
to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's
slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of
obedience leading to righteousness?"
6:16, Bible, NKJV]
Annotated (USCA), 13th Amendment: Slavery in the Context of taxation
Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207; 25 S.Ct. 429; 49 L.Ed. 726 (1905):
"It is not open to
doubt that Congress may enforce the 13th Amendment by direct legislation,
punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude
except as a punishment for crime. In the exercise of that power
Congress has enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing
one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude.
This legislation is not limited to the territories or other parts of
the strictly national domain, but is operative in the states and wherever
the sovereignty of the United States extends. We entertain no
doubt of the validity of the legislation, or its applicability to the
case of any person holding another in a state of peonage, and this whether
there be a municipal ordinance or state law sanctioning such holding.
It operates directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his
residence may be."
v. United States, 197 U.S. 207; 25 S.Ct. 429; 49 L.Ed. 726 (1905)]
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896):
“That is does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished
slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime,
is too clear for argument.
Slavery implies involuntary servitude—a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence
of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services.
This amendment was said in the Slaughter House Cases, 16
Wall, 36, to have been intended primarily to abolish slavery, as it
had been previously known in this country, and that it equally forbade
Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie trade, when they amounted to slavery
or involuntary servitude and that the use of the word ‘servitude’
was intended to prohibit the use of all forms of involuntary slavery,
of whatever class or name.”
[Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896)]
Right To Labor
Deposition Questions: From Tax Deposition Questions, Section 2
I > Sec. 1994.
- Peonage abolished
The holding of any
person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished
and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States;
and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any
Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or
enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made
to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary
or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation
of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void
> PART I
77 > Sec. 1581.
- Peonage; obstructing enforcement
(a) Whoever holds or
returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person
with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of
peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section,
or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) Whoever obstructs,
or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the
enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed
in subsection (a)
> PART I
77 > Sec. 1589.
- Forced labor
Whoever knowingly provides
or obtains the labor or services of a person -
(1) by threats of serious
harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;
(2) by means of any
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that,
if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or
another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(3) by means of
the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,
shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death
results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt
to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years
or life, or both
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.
Amendment, Emphasis added]
Have you ever considered that being
forced to pay
income taxes to the state on the basis of wage income constitutes
slavery? It may not
be physical slavery but it constitutes financial slavery.
Merriam Webster defines slavery as follows:
1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another: BONDMAN
2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.
TOIL 2: submission to a dominating influence 3 a:
the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the
practice of slaveholding.
It then defines “servitude” as follows:
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin
Date: 15th century
1 : a condition
in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of
2 : a right by which something (as a piece
of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment
From the above definition, you can see that servitude, or slavery,
encompasses not only surrendering control of one’s body and time
to another, but it also involves the right of use and beneficial
enjoyment of one’s property as well.
Servitude is a condition where we have been involuntarily
deprived of liberty.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1388 defines
slavery as follows:
The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one
man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.
The 13th Amendment abolished
A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one
who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are
wholly under the control of another.
One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to
him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his
industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything,
have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his
master. The 13th
Amendment abolished slavery.
The condition of slavery
is referred to in the U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 77 (sections
1581 through 1588) as “peonage”, which is defined as follows:
peonage 1 a: the use of laborers bound in servitude
because of debt b: a system of convict labor by which convicts
are leased to contractors 2: the condition of a peon.
3 a: a person
held in compulsory servitude to a master for the working out of
an indebtedness b: DRUDGE, MENIAL
Would anyone argue that we aren’t peons who are slaves to the Federal
Reserve and who owe income
taxes to pay off the debts of the U.S. government to the privately
owned Federal Reserve?
Isn’t peonage against the law, but that’s what the U.S. Congress legalized when it nearly simultaneously passed the Federal
Reserve Act and the Income
Tax in 1913? The two
are linked together because if you are going to run up a big public
debt, then peons are needed to pay it off.
Notice that the key to being a slave is the absence of property rights, and the most sacred kind
of property is one’s labor, as confirmed in the supreme Court case
of Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,
111 U.S. 746, 1883.
Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence,
confirmed the foundation of our political system is the ownership
and complete control over one’s property when he said the following:
true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every
citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas
Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval,
1816. ME 15:36
is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440
who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with
difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force."
--Thomas Jefferson to Edward
Bancroft, 1788. ME 19:41
The U.S. supreme Court agreed with the view that sovereignty
of the Citizen over his property (including his labor and the wages
resulting from his labor) is the foundation of all liberty:
the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or
the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment
of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in
any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 US 356 (1885)
The government attempts to make it appear that the tax system is
based on "voluntary compliance", but they never adequately define
what "voluntary" means or why they put the word “compliance” after
it to confuse things.
They also attempt to make it look voluntary by illegally
coercing and threatening employees to complete a W-4 "Withholding Allowance" certificate, which in effect gives
the government the permission from the employee to withhold income
taxes from their pay.
However, there have been several cases where employees have
refused to complete the W-4, and the employers have consulted the
IRS, only to be told that they can't hire a person who won't complete
and sign the W-4 (see section
EEOC v. Information
Systems Consulting, Inc., CA3-92-0169-T, United States Court
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division; mentioned in section
2.6.2). The courts
have ruled in the case of EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting, Inc., that it
is considered illegal NOT to hire someone who refused to complete
a W-4 form because it violates
a person's civil rights!
Here is another way to look at it.
Income taxes as they are currently (illegally, I might add)
being implemented by the IRS effectively assess taxes on employment
wages on the basis of or in proportion to the hours worked.
For instance, if I am in the 28% tax bracket, then I am a
slave to the IRS for 28%
of the year. Every
year, the media refers to what they call "tax freedom day", which
is the day during the year at which everyone in America has paid
off all their taxes to the federal government and everything they
take home from that point is considered to be theirs.
If income taxes are assessed on the basis of labor or as
an equivalent percentage of labor, then in effect, for a portion
of a person's work year that is in proportion to their income tax
rate or percentage,
the person being taxed
in effect becomes a slave or involuntary servant of the government
for the portion of the year corresponding to their tax percentage
only way they could pay any kind of taxes and
not be a slave
to the government is if the taxes are excises (indirect) based on
sales of goods, because then people have the discretion or choice
as to whether they want to buy something or not, without the threat
of coercion from the government to mandatorily pay a tax.
Right now with the income taxes based on wages, all Congress has to do is make the income tax rate 100% and we all become
INSTANT SLAVES of the government for the entire year, and people
will have absolutely nothing they can do about it and we would all
starve to death! And when you have no money, you can't afford to
litigate to protect your rights either so you are likely to stay
in that state indefinitely.
The condition of financial slavery is therefore self-perpetuating.
Another thing to consider is that the income
taxes on individuals are frequently used, in effect, for social
engineering purposes that compel people to do things they would
not otherwise do in every
conceivable area of life!
In this sense, people also become slaves using income taxes.
All that is needed for this type of coercion is some new
tax credit or tax penalty for a particular type of financial, moral,
or economic activity.
For instance, if congress wants to outlaw smoking, then all
they have to do is make the price of continuing to smoke so high
using a tax credit that no one will want to continue.
They could offer a 10% additional charge to income taxes
for people who smoke, which makes the cost of continuing to smoke
so exorbitant that everyone would be compelled to quit!
They could also do it, as Canada did, by an oppressively
high type of income tax on smokers.
This leads us to the conclusion that with direct income taxes,
there is no such thing as freedom or privacy and the government
has ultimate control over every aspect of our lives and can regulate
every aspect of our behavior through taxation.
This consideration is also behind the idea that it is unconstitutional
for the government to either tax, penalize, or fine the exercise
of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Refer to section
2.4: The Freedom Test, to see whether you are a slave who has been deceived or deluded into thinking he is free.
The slavery comes
in many forms, and the main impetus behind continuing the financial
slavery to the IRS that politicians will often talk about is paying
off the national debt.
As long as people believe that the national debt is large
and needs to continue to be paid off, then they will be less likely
to question the encroachment of their due process and 5th
and 14th Amendment protections
by the IRS in the process of illegally implementing the income tax
laws. Citizens will be more likely to agree with the need to pay
taxes they wouldn't otherwise owe.
Never mind the
fact that no matter how much money you give the politicians, they
will always find excuses to deficit spend and will never pay off
As long as the politicians
are spending "other people's money" derived through income taxes
with no constitutional or statutory obligation to balance the budget,
they will continue to destroy the credit if the United States and
force the national debt and public spending ever higher.
This will ensure that the financial slavery and tax rates
becomes more and more oppressive every year using the excuse that
the budget isn't balanced.
The more we borrow and the greater the interest on the national
debt we have, the harder it will be to pay off current obligations
without increasing taxes continually.
The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to end the fiscal
irresponsibility and lack of discipline or accountability of the
fat-cat lawyers in Washington, D.C.
Refer to section
2.8.6 Debt, for information about how government oppression
is perpetuated and expanded in the name of public debt.
Based on the preceding discussion as a background,
it is very easy to understand why the prudent founding fathers included
a prohibition against direct taxes of the population by the U.S.
Government in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the constitution.
It would appear they wanted to prevent involuntary financial
slavery of individuals to
the federal government, especially based on direct taxes on wages
derived from employment.
Government, for further discussion of this subject.
[Hodges v. U.S., 203 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 6 (U.S. 1906)]
Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409 (1968):
"As its text reveals, the Thirteenth Amendment "is not a mere
prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but
an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall
not exist in any part of the United States." Civil Rights Cases,
109 U.S. 3, 20 . It has never been doubted, therefore, "that
the power vested in Congress to enforce the article by appropriate
legislation," ibid., includes the power to enact laws "direct and
primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether sanctioned
by State legislation or not." Id., at 23.
"Thus, the fact that 1982 operates upon the unofficial acts
of private individuals, whether or not sanctioned by state law,
presents no constitutional problem. If Congress has power under
the Thirteenth Amendment to eradicate conditions that prevent Negroes
from buying and renting property because of their race or color,
then no federal statute calculated to achieve that objective [392
U.S. 409, 439] can be thought to exceed the constitutional
power of Congress simply because it reaches beyond state action
to regulate the conduct of private individuals. The constitutional
question in this case, therefore, comes to this: Does the authority
of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment "by appropriate
legislation" include the power to eliminate all racial barriers
to the acquisition of real and personal property? We think the answer
to that question is plainly yes.
"By its own unaided force and effect," the Thirteenth Amendment
"abolished slavery, and established universal freedom." Civil
109 U.S. 3, 20 . Whether or not the Amendment itself did
any more than that - a question not involved in this case -
it is at least clear that the Enabling Clause of that Amendment
empowered Congress to do much more. For that clause clothed
"Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for
abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United
States." Ibid. (Emphasis added.)
Those who opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 argued
in effect that the Thirteenth Amendment merely authorized Congress
to dissolve the legal bond by which the Negro slave was held to
his master. 75 Yet many had earlier
opposed the Thirteenth Amendment on the very ground that it would
give Congress virtually unlimited power to enact laws for the protection
of Negroes in every State. 76 And
the majority leaders in Congress - who were, after all, the authors
of the Thirteenth Amendment - had no doubt that its Enabling Clause
contemplated the sort of positive legislation that [392 U.S. 409,
440] was embodied in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Their
chief spokesman, Senator Trumbull of Illinois, the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, had brought the Thirteenth Amendment to the
floor of the Senate in 1864. In defending the constitutionality
of the 1866 Act, he argued that, if the narrower construction of
the Enabling Clause were correct, then
"the trumpet of freedom that we have been blowing throughout
the land has given an `uncertain sound,' and the promised freedom
is a delusion. Such was not the intention of Congress, which
proposed the constitutional amendment, nor is such the fair
meaning of the amendment itself. . . . I have no doubt that
under this provision . . . we may destroy all these discriminations
in civil rights against the black man; and if we cannot, our
constitutional amendment amounts to nothing. It was for that
purpose that the second clause of that amendment was adopted,
which says that Congress shall have authority, by appropriate
legislation, to carry into effect the article prohibiting slavery.
Who is to decide what that appropriate legislation is to be?
The Congress of the United States; and it is for Congress to
adopt such appropriate legislation as it may think proper, so
that it be a means to accomplish the end."
"Surely Senator Trumbull was right. Surely Congress has the power
under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are
the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate
that determination into effective legislation. Nor can we say that
the determination Congress has made is an irrational [392 U.S. 409,
441] one. For this Court recognized long ago that, whatever
else they may have encompassed, the badges and incidents of slavery
- its "burdens and disabilities" - included restraints upon "those
fundamental rights which are the essence of civil freedom, namely,
the same right . . . to inherit, purchase, lease, sell and convey
property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." Civil Rights Cases,
109 U.S. 3, 22 . 78 Just as the
Black Codes, enacted after the Civil [392 U.S. 409, 442]
War to restrict the free exercise of those rights, were substitutes
for the slave system, so the exclusion of Negroes from white communities
became a substitute for the Black Codes. And when racial discrimination
herds men [392 U.S. 409, 443] into ghettos and makes
their ability to buy property turn on the color of their skin, then
it too is a relic of slavery.
"Negro citizens, North and South, who saw in the Thirteenth Amendment
a promise of freedom - freedom to "go and come at pleasure"
79 and to "buy and sell when they
please" 80 - would be left with "a
mere paper guarantee" 81 if Congress
were powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of a Negro will
purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of a white man.
At the very least, the freedom that Congress is empowered to secure
under the Thirteenth Amendment includes the freedom to buy whatever
a white man can buy, the right to live wherever a white man can
live. If Congress cannot say that being a free man means at least
this much, then the Thirteenth Amendment made a promise the Nation
[Jones v. Mayer,
392 U.S. 409 (1968)]