USA goes conscription...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher
How does conscription affect dual-citizens?

As a dual citizen of the US and Canada, if the US introduced conscription and I lived in Canada, would I still be forced to go?

Yep!!!!

I don't care. I'm 50.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
would this not lead to more gun-toting mercenary type immigrants on the street instead of just normal people wanting to build a new life?

France doesn't seem to have those problems.

[David Floyd]

Yep!!!!

I don't care. I'm 50.

Oddly enough, this is the same attitude that those who vote for the draft display.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oddly enough, this is the same attitude that those who vote for the draft display.

For God's sake David! The military doesn't want a draft! There are better windmills to go tilting at.

[David Floyd]

I don't care. If even one Representative or Senator is pushing for a draft, that's one too many.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

David Floyd - Your answer on page 2 of this thread was really useful; thanks. You should know, however, that Webster wasn't one of the Founders; he was only 7 years old when th Constitution was written.

[CapitanGarlic]

I've got flat feet. And I could always arrange a 'hunting accident', being from Montana and all...(nudge nudge, wink wink)

[David Floyd]

You should know, however, that Webster wasn't one of the Founders; he was only 7 years old when th Constitution was written.

True, I misworded it - what I meant was basically that he would have been in a good position to have a better understanding of intent, and if one is making an appeal to authority, Webster is a good one to appeal to.

[Q Classic]

It depends on the sort of lesson envisioned. I would recommend either not teaching them a lesson, or teaching them a lesson with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. IIRC total U.S. active duty forces are a little over 2 million.

that's right, let's nuke those damned jap bastards. nobody needs more red chinks anyhow. fvckin' slopes. those gooks had it comin'.
actually might be a good idea. far too many of them in the first place.

seems a bit overboard, doesn't it? but that's what it'll look like, especially when one notices the only race to ever be nuked is the east asian race. it'll be a public relations nightmare.

as to the question does the USA have enough troops to invade,
the answer is no. Nkorea is much more heavily defended than iraq is. iraq is flat; nkorea is mostly mountain. tanks aren't going to be as useful.
iraq is warm, mostly sunny, and aside from the occasional sandstorm, has good weather to fight in.
nkorea is completely temperate; the snows are heavy, the summers are blistering. since most of the fighting will be done by ground troops, it'll be extremely tough footwork for them.
iraq has not been under a seige mentality for the past fifty years.
nkorea has.
if the us invaded, with skorea's full support, although they would win, since most of the campaign would be on the ground, both countries would be bled dry, at least in active forces. a pyrrhic victory, which is why i say no.

the draft? i don't like it. if they reinstated it, it would be important to me what the war was. if it was korea, i'd sign up. if it were anywhere else, i'd have to be convinced.

[cinch]

They already do this, Pekka.

I was just going to say this, NYE.

There was even a recent article about it on cbc.ca; there are a few Micmac boys from down east fighting in Iraq with the Marines.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oddly enough, this is the same attitude that those who vote for the draft display.

Yep! Bring it on! I don't care!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
It's a what-if thread. Now, let's get the obvious out of the way:

[David Floyd]
The government has no right to conscript citizens!!!
[/David Floyd]

I must say that, while I normally regard Floyd's libertarian fundamentalism as simply loopy, I do wonder how one squares the draft with the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

"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."

How is the draft not "involuntary servitude"? Anybody have the case law on this?

The supreme court ruled that you get paid so it is not slavery. I would consider it "involentary servitude" but the courts have shot that one down in every war since the Civil War.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Basically, SCOTUS is saying that the original Constitution allowed conscription.

Actually it did. The 'necessary and proper' clause, added to the power of congress to raise and support armies, obviously (and yes it is obvious) gives Congress the power to conscript.

If you wish to talk about the 'founders', read the opinion you linked:

the government determined that the excrcise of the power to organize an army by compulsory draft was necessary and Mr. Monroe, the Secretary of War (Mr. Madison being President), in a letter to Congress recommended several plans of legislation on that subject.

I'd think James Madison was a founder.

And let us link to the provision you quoted:

Finally, 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.

If you read what this clause said, you can tell that it addressed the 13th Amendment. The court could not concieve that the Amendment abridged Congress' right to conscript. Basically they said that the 13th Amendment was intended (an argument that you like... intention of the drafters) to end slavery, and not to prohibit the draft.

And btw, this reading of the amendment (it's intention wasn't to limit Congress' power to conscript) has been backed in 523 cases in the lower courts. SCOTUS will never revisit the issue again, I can assure you that.

[David Floyd]

Actually it did. The 'necessary and proper' clause, added to the power of congress to raise and support armies, obviously (and yes it is obvious) gives Congress the power to conscript.

I fail to see how it is obvious that they would copy some of the tyrannical practices of the British, against whom they revolted.

I'd think James Madison was a founder.

Yes, and you also have to realize that power corrupts.

And btw, this reading of the amendment (it's intention wasn't to limit Congress' power to conscript) has been backed in 523 cases in the lower courts. SCOTUS will never revisit the issue again, I can assure you that.

Oh, so original intent is relevant now? You're gonna have to pick one side or the other.

[Dinner]

The writer's intent is always relevent when trying to understand what he means.