The united States Constitution - Essay Example

Module Module D: Thirteenth Amendment The present paper aims to elaborate the thirteenth amendment introduced by the legislators in the US constitution, by seeking the annotation related to it, as well as the interpretations observed by the Supreme Court of America through its verdicts and judgments, time and again, in the best interest of the country and nation at large. One of the most essential reasons behind carrying out the current research on the afore-mentioned topic includes the exploration of the association between the statutes and provisions of the constitution on the one side, and decrees issued by the Supreme Court while explaining them, on the other.

First passed by the Senate in April 1864 and by the House on 31st January 1865, the amendment was adopted the same year on 6th December (GPO-CONAN 1793-4). Section 1 of the 13th amendment explicitly maintains the abolishment of slavery and involuntary servitude from all parts of the country, as well as the territories outside the USA under American jurisdiction, in these words: “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” (GPO-CONAN 1796).

In Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883), the Supreme Court held that the amendment under-examination concentrates upon the eradication of slavery and involuntary servitude only with the aim of introducing an absolute freedom in the country (109 US 4, 20). Somehow, the court further exclaims, that denial of equal accommodations in public places does not impose any mark of slavery; instead it actually infringes the rights had been protected by the law abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude.

In other terms, despite the reality that SC applies observing of equality at public places; nevertheless, it does not enforce the strict banishment of ethno-racial or religious prejudice and bias being demonstrated by the (white) subjects at the public places towards their black counterparts (Parks 24). However, the judgment issued by the court expressively turns down the prevalence of wide-scale ethno-racial prejudice in the country (109 US 62, 20). Similarly, through its verdict in 392 U.S.

409 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (No. 645), the court held in its Para 2 (a) that Section 1982 completely bars any type of racial discrimination to be observed with regards to the sale and purchase of any property. In other words, witnessing of racial bias in property-related business has been declared as manifestly against the provisions of 13th amendment had been introduced with the intention of purging the country of all the activities that could bar the universal right of freedom of the US citizens.

Since racial prejudice existed at a larger scale in all parts of the country, the same was also observed to discourage and prohibit the black community from purchasing the property in the neighbourhood of the white population (Kenan 153-4). Consequently, despite the fact that annotated sections 1 & 2 of the 13th amendment do not concentrate upon discrimination; nevertheless, the verdicts issued by the Supreme Court while providing the explanations of the same, also prohibit ethno-racial discrimination by indirectly declaring it to be the essential part of freedom and equality.

The annotation of the amendment under-investigation has also been interpreted by SC in its verdict 379 U.S. 294 Katzenbach v. McClung (No. 543) in the year 1964, where it was held that the offering of the selling of food could not be denied to any particular racial group or community, provided the food is being offered on commercial purposes at a restaurant or at any other public place; and the US citizens had their right to buy the articles of their choice without undergoing the discriminatory behaviour on the part of the traders.

Hence, even the owner of a business organisation or firm does not have the right to make discrimination among the clients and customers by confining its products to one or more particular racial groups only (LII 2014). To conclude, it becomes crystal clear that the Supreme Court of America has successfully proved itself to be the true interpreter of the statutes and provisions of the US constitution, as well as the custodian of the human rights of all groups, communities and factions of the country without discrimination.

At the points where the constitution looks silent and unable with regards to providing a clear relief to the American subjects, it is Supreme Court that steps forward and plays its dynamic role for providing the people with an unflinching and unconditional relief by deciding and determining the status and position of the parties in dispute without paying slightest heed to the ethnic, racial, regional, religious, gender-based and other backgrounds of the parties altogether. Works CitedKenan, Randall.

“The Foundations of the Earth” Reading Literature and Writing Argument Ed Missy James and Alan Merickel 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008 152-63. Print.Parks, Rosa. Rosa Parks: My Story. Penguin Books 1999. Print.GPO-CONAN. “Thirteenth Amendment--Slavery and Involuntary Servitude.” Authorised US Government Information 2013 1789-97. Web. https://beta.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013-10-14.pdfLegal Information Institute (LII). CRS Annotated Constitution: Thirteenth Amendment.

Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883) Web. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt13_user.html#amdt13_hd6392 U.S. 409 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (No. 645)379 U.S. 294 Katzenbach v. McClung (No. 543)