Jailing People For Leaving the Military Or Dodging The Draft Violates the 13th Amendment

Rebuttal #1Con argues that because Article III, Section VIII of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies that this trumps the 13th Amendment.This argument is nonsense. The "Bill of Rights" was put in place precisely to limit the power of the government even if one of its enumerated powers would've otherwise allowed it to do something. While the 13th amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights it is an "amendment" just like the "Bill of Rights". The entire process of passing the Bill of Rights suggests the Framers would've taken an amendment to trump what ever came before it.No AmbiguityThe words "involuntary" and "servitude" both have very plain meanings. "Involuntary" is self-explanatory. "Servitude" means: "a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life".http://www.merriam-webster.com...If it fits the meaning it's "involuntary servitude". Like military service both jury duty and school attendance could be enforced entirely through financial penalties, which is analogous to the practice of some companies of putting a penalty clause for quitting in the contract and so would be constitutional. Or ultimately we could fix it with an amendment if necessary, but we shouldn't twist the Constitution just for our convenience or it will become a very weak document.Assumption?"Furthermore, there are many generally accepted laws that technically contradict what I would assume to be your interpretation of the Constitution:"What is your assumption?"-Freedom of religion does not protect human sacrifices because that would infringe on another person's right to life."A law specifically against human sacrifices, treating it separately from other murders would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does NOT prevent the government from having laws that go against religious practices as long as it is not targeting the religious practice. For example, "polygamy" was ruled not to be constitutionally protected religious freedom on these grounds. As it is non-discriminatory towards "religion" (would apply equally to secular polygamists) it's not a constitutional problem."-Fraud and Slander laws limit free speech (1st Amendment).""-Libel and false advertising law limit freedom of the press (1st Amendment)."Because "Freedom of Speech" does not include the right to tell harmful lies."-The right to bear arms is limited by laws against assault rifles and fully automatic firearms (1st Amendment)."The amendment doesn't say the right has to apply to every conceivable sort of arm. Obviously it's not or the Framers intended every military weapon including nuclear bombs to be available for private possession.But the 13th amendment does say that involuntary servitude is NOT allowed except as punishment for a crime that one has been duly convicted for.Furthermore, the 2nd amendment references a "well regulated militia" which at the very least means that some regulation is reasonable.Rebuttal to "Courts have to agree"The courts interpreted the Constitution and ultimately decide what we TREAT as constitutional for legal purposes. However, the question of what IS actually constitutional is a more theoretical question. Segregation was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment from the beginning. "Plessy v. Ferguson" did NOT make it constitutional, it made it legal that it would be treated as constitutional because the Supreme Court made a mistake.