Selective Service - Keep it or Ditch it?

[Bosh]

Amendment XIII

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.

seems pretty straight forward to me, how is being drafted anything but "involuntary servitude"?

[David Floyd]

That's about all it boils down to, Boshko

[rah]

I also included humanitarian service also.

Think what the world opinion might be of the US, if we sent MILLIONS of our youngest and brightest to other countries to assist in the war against poverty and famine. Maybe by seeing our better side, they would appreciate what we fight for.

And saying I'm weak because I'd SUBMIT to it just reinforces my opinion of your unwillingness to give back anything when you don't benefit from it.

I never once said US right or wrong. I was just submitting a concept that would make our country and it's people better. But I should know better that to expect aggreement from selfish people like you.

[Ramo]

How is it selfish to expect the government not to enslave people?

[David Floyd]

I also included humanitarian service also.

And again, how is that NOT involuntary servitude?

Think what the world opinion might be of the US, if we sent MILLIONS of our youngest and brightest to other countries to assist in the war against poverty and famine.

Of course, those youngest and brightest should be in school, getting degrees in business and computer science and physics and political science and whatever else, not off in some foreign country being forced to do work they likely don't want to be doing and resent. I'd certainly resent getting sent to Africa against my will, to do battle with tons of diseases, bad water, and worse food.

I was just submitting a concept that would make our country and it's people better.

And I think the best way to improve the US is for people to attend college and get right into the workplace - the civilian workplace - where they can begin highly valuable work of building better microprocessors, bigger TVs, and more fuel efficient cars, not to mention arguing anti-draft cases before courts.

[rah]

That's the crux of the whole arguement here. Some will see it as a duty to improve our country and others. Some will see it as enslavement. You tell me which side looks more selfish here.

And we have had DRAFTS before, so we know that that ammendment doesn't apply to military service.

[David Floyd]

That's the crux of the whole arguement here. Some will see it as a duty to improve our country and others. Some will see it as enslavement. You tell me which side looks more selfish here.

First of all, even if there was an implied duty to better THIS country, there is NONE ANYWHERE to better other countries. Further, as I've already pointed out, the US is made better by people that age going to college and getting useful degrees, not spending two years in Bum**** Nowhere and coming back in a bodybag because they died of West Nile Virus.

And we have had DRAFTS before, so we know that that ammendment doesn't apply to military service.

Of course it does - the WW1-era Supreme Court, like most other Courts, mistakenly assumed that the government can do whatever it wants in an emergency, and didn't look at the Constitution.

[Ramo]

Some will see it as a duty to improve our country and others. Some will see it as enslavement. You tell me which side looks more selfish here.

1. How can it possibly not be considered enslavement?
2. We're talking about forcing all Americans into this labor, not what me or David will do individually. How does selfishness come into the argument, exactly?

And we have had DRAFTS before, so we know that that ammendment doesn't apply to military service.

That's because our court system is authoritarian. There are a number of constitutional provisions that aren't being enforced. Does that mean they don't exist?

[rah]

Originally posted by David Floyd


First of all, even if there was an implied duty to better THIS country, there is NONE ANYWHERE to better other countries. Further, as I've already pointed out, the US is made better by people that age going to college and getting useful degrees, not spending two years in Bum**** Nowhere and coming back in a bodybag because they died of West Nile Virus.

Of course it does - the WW1-era Supreme Court, like most other Courts, mistakenly assumed that the government can do whatever it wants in an emergency, and didn't look at the Constitution.

And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US.
It's that type of attitude that does it. I'd like to think we're better than that.

Last time I checked, the Supreme Court is supposed to make discision about constitionality. Or you claiming superior knowledge in that area of expertise too?

RAH
p.s. you don't have to go overseas to get WNV, we've had more than a couple die within a hundred miles of my house in the last month.

[David Floyd]

And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US.
It's that type of attitude that does it. I'd like to think we're better than that.

Is it arrogant of me to want to stay home where it's relatively safe rather than going to work with starving people in the jungle where diseases are rampant? If so, so what? I value my life, and refuse to risk it for a purpose that helps me not in the least.

Last time I checked, the Supreme Court is supposed to make discision about constitionality.

The Supreme Court can be wrong, of course - Dred Scott is one case you'd agree with, and another rather notorious one in my opinion is that of Wickard v Filburn, when the Court told a farmer he couldn't grow extra food to feed his family.

[loinburger]

It ain't slavery if you can opt out of it. If "opting out" means changing your citizenship then it may be a bit harsh, but I'd see no problem with an amendment that only allows people to vote or hold a government job or whatever after they've put in a year of service. It wouldn't be "slavery," it'd be "earning the rights of full citizenship." Anybody who wants to opt out of being a full-fledged citizen is welcome to it.

[rah]

I'll be the first to agree that the SC can be wrong. No system can be perfect. But it is the law of the land. It's part of the system that makes this country what it is. It's not up to me to decide on an case by case issue. That's their job.

And I laugh that the best excuse for not helping your fellow man is that you will die in "jungle where diseases are rampantin". A bit extreme I think. Wonder what percentage of our Peace Core die every year. I would be willing to bet it's real small. Just a lousy excuse for your selfishness when it comes to helping your fellow man.

And I never said humanitarian help had to be in another country. It could be in our own neighborhoods. But of course you could probably get killed there also. So never mind.

RAH

Loin, maybe a bit extreme, but it has some merit.
But it wouldn't fly because obviously there is too much of a feeling of entitlement in this country.

[Ramo]

Escaping to another country after you're drafted is considered illegal, AFAIK.

People who moved to Canada after being drafted, just as slaves who escaped to Canada, didn't follow the law.

[Dis]

DF and I have the same number of posts. Freaky or what?

[David Floyd]

It ain't slavery if you can opt out of it. If "opting out" means changing your citizenship then it may be a bit harsh, but I'd see no problem with an amendment that only allows people to vote or hold a government job or whatever after they've put in a year of service. It wouldn't be "slavery," it'd be "earning the rights of full citizenship."

That would be unconstitutional. I am an automatic full citizen by virtue of birth within the United States, and you won't be amending THAT anytime soon.

By the way, here is an extract of the biggest Supreme Court decision regarding the draft:

245 U.S. 366 (1918).
''As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.''

The full decision is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=245&invol=366

Basically, their problem was that they could not define the words "involuntary servitude". If they'd bothered to check a dictionary, they would have found the following:

involuntary-
1 : done contrary to or without choice
2 : COMPULSORY
3 : not subject to control of the will : REFLEX

servitude-
1 : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life

slavery-
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence

Now, when one is conscription one has no choice, lacks the liberty to determine their course of life, and is submission to a dominating influence.

Based upon a dictionary definition of the English language, conscription MUST be involuntary servitude and slavery.

Of course, that decision has other problems as well. Specifically, it is stated that:
"...performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation..."

The Court fails to establish a Constitutional basis for the existence of a "supreme and noble duty". Further, the misuse the word "defense".

Defense, according to the dictionary, means:
1 a : the act or action of defending b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2 a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability

World War 1 had nothing to do with defense, so even IF there was a "supreme and noble duty" to provide for defense, WW1 would not have fit the bill.

If you look at the whole decision - which is very short - you'll note that the part I cited is the ONLY place in which the 13th Amendment is mentioned. The rejection of that argument is so brief and so ill-supported that a future Court would almost have to hear it again.