UNITED STATES V. HATCH: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE

For decades, courts have struggled with the controversy over the appropriate scope of congressional power. The battle between a broad, deferential view and a narrow, limited view is the focus of many cases interpreting grants of congressional authority by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment is not commonly found in contemporary legal analysis; however, power offered by the Amendment, and the cases interpreting it, has noteworthy potential in our modern society. Because the history and specificity of the Thirteenth Amendment is so different from the Fourteenth Amendment, arguments drawing strict correlation between the two should be scrutinized. Overly restrictive limits on congressional power carry consequences and should be carefully considered. Limitations to the Fourteenth Amendment have brought criticism that must be analyzed when approaching similar action with regard to the Thirteenth Amendment. Learning from, and avoiding repeating, past mistakes is a sign of a sophisticated and evolving society. Such caution must be central to the imminent discussion of congressional authority under the Thirteenth Amendment.