National Service/Draft?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Jury duty only applies to individuals who have registered to vote. So you have some element of choice. Plus giving up a day or two is much different than giving up two years of your life. Same with mandatory voting which requires at most an hour of your time. But we have never had mandatory voting in this country, nor do I expect we will ever have it.

AFAIK jury duty is in some jurisdictions legally incumbent on everyone - there is no official grant of exemption to those who dont register to vote. Its just that the use of voter list to identify eligible jurors creates a de facto exemption.

As for the different lengths of service, of course thats a real substantive issue that should be considered. But AFAIK SCOTUS has held that there's no difference from the POV of constitutional law.

Note also, service on a trial jury can easily last more than a week.

If youre unlucky enough to be called for a grand jury, it can last months.

Or even a trial jury, if you happen to land on say, the ATT antitrust case.

Unlike national service the extreme variance in what you serve (some folks show up and are dismissed after one or two days, or a simple one or two day trial) and others serve for months) is a source of injustice.

[Patroklos]

Congress does, without question, have the power to create an army and use it how the government sees fit, but there is nothing that allows a draft.

It provides no restrictions on how that army is raised.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Unlike national service the extreme variance in what you serve (some folks show up and are dismissed after one or two days, or a simple one or two day trial) and others serve for months) is a source of injustice.

Not as bad an injustice as drafting only one segment of the population (17-19-year-olds) and not others.


Patroklos, the Constitution doesn't work that way. Or at least wasn't intended to work that way when it was drafted. If a power isn't listed in the Constitution then the 9th and 10 Amendments come into play and assume that power rests with the states or with individuals. Sadly the last 80 years have done severe damage to such a notion, but it still remains.

[Pekka]

LOTM, nice statement, except that it doesn't carry a long time alone. WIth that justification, we can, as a society, determine that we'll use the 19 year olds as sex slaves. Hey, you're a citizen, don't like it? Get another membership to a club that doesn't see this as your responsibility.

Of course you're enforcing a very nice communist kind of picture where citizens are resources. Added with the kind of Tayloristic view on how those resources can be used effectively and you've just created the dystopia of the slave race of all humans.

Besides, those 19 year olds are likely to not have had the opportunity to even vote, so they can't really effectively affect the "rules of the society". They would be forced to serve because OTHER people decided so and you had absolutely no chance to say anything about it.

So, that statement is not only invalid in justifying things, it is also the view of dictators and other nice people, where citizens are resources to be used in order to get the goals of the society. But if you have a society that suppsoedly enjoys freedom of the individual, there's a natural conflict.

Whatever. I don't see people as resources. I see them as individuals with individual hopes, dreams, goals, motives etc.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP

That is a considerable leap of logic. Nothing in there refers to involuntary military service.

Nothing in there refers to paying an army either. Or setting up a military academy. Or a Marine Corps. The absence of specifics on how to implement a power does not mean any specific means of implementation is unconstitutional, under the jurisprudence SCOTUS has followed for two centuries.

Since militias were ROUTINELY mandatory at the time, its reasonable to assumet that involuntary military service was considered one means of raising an army.


[q]To answer the question about whether the states can draft you need to refer to their state constitutions. [q/]

Not if the only point is to show that conscription doesnt violate the 13 amendment, and was taken for granted as legal under the original US constitution.

No is suggested that states today hold drafts. What is being demonstrated is that the Constitution assume involuntary military service.

[Patroklos]

Ozzy, The constitution specifically listed the power to raise armies.

It didn't specifically say how the government could tax, only that it could. Anything that fits under the listed power and isn't forbidden by another portion of the Constitution is fair game.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP


[q]Not as bad an injustice as drafting only one segment of the population (17-19-year-olds) and not others. [q/]

If we did this on a steady basis there would be no such injustice as all would serve when they were at the appropriate age, other than those unfortunates who die before reaching 17. Im sorry that there is a block of people who hit 17 when this was not in place and so are exempt. I registered for the draft the year registration was reinstituted, and did not protest. I would have supported this earlier. The longer we defer it, the more people there are who escape it.

Patroklos, the Constitution doesn't work that way. Or at least wasn't intended to work that way when it was drafted. If a power isn't listed in the Constitution then the 9th and 10 Amendments come into play and assume that power rests with the states or with individuals. Sadly the last 80 years have done severe damage to such a notion, but it still remains.

No, the constitution has always had inferred powers, as part of the implementation of explicitly granted powers.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Pekka

LOTM, nice statement, except that it doesn't carry a long time alone.

which statement?

WIth that justification, we can, as a society, determine that we'll use the 19 year olds as sex slaves.

I have difficulty seeing that as a public purpose. I also have difficulty seeing it pass in a democratic society.

Of course you're enforcing a very nice communist kind of picture where citizens are resources.

So were FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon, all of whom were US presidents when we had conscription, Communists? Was Abe Lincoln a Communist? Is anyone who isnt a libertarian a Communist?

Added with the kind of Tayloristic view on how those resources can be used effectively and you've just created the dystopia of the slave race of all humans.

???????WTF?

Besides, those 19 year olds are likely to not have had the opportunity to even vote, so they can't really effectively affect the "rules of the society". They would be forced to serve because OTHER people decided so and you had absolutely no chance to say anything about it.

Fortunately I live here and am old enough to remember some things. The granting of the vote to 18 YO's was specifically justified on the grounds of "old enough to fight, old enough to vote". Previously the voting age was 21. It seems absurd therefore to say that 19 YOs non-voting behavior makes national service unjust.

If you want to have the service start at age 20, to make sure theyve voted in a national election, you can.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka

So, that statement is not only invalid in justifying things, it is also the view of dictators and other nice people, where citizens are resources to be used in order to get the goals of the society.

Dictators use taxes, build infrastructure, therefore we shouldnt?


[q] But if you have a society that suppsoedly enjoys freedom of the individual, there's a natural conflict.

Whatever. I don't see people as resources. I see them as individuals with individual hopes, dreams, goals, motives etc.

They are individuals, and also citizens with obligations to each other. We have to recognize BOTH, and in our society in recent decades we have leaned very far in one direction.

[Pekka]

"I have difficulty seeing that as a public purpose. I also have difficulty seeing it pass in a democratic society. "

So? Does this mean YOU get to decide what the purposes are? Or is this the magical "society"?

"
So were FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon, all of whom were US presidents when we had conscription, Communists? Was Abe Lincoln a Communist? Is anyone who isnt a libertarian a Communist?"

And Hitler, Saddam, Kim from NK, Pol Pot... you have no point.

"Fortunately I live here and am old enough to remember some things. The granting of the vote to 18 YO's was specifically justified on the grounds of "old enough to fight, old enough to vote". Previously the voting age was 21. It seems absurd therefore to say that 19 YOs non-voting behavior makes national service unjust."

Yeah, but this was just an added bonus to waht you consider a very democratic way of handling things. Meaning that in practice many of these cats never had the chance to vote. Not that it would make any difference, since you think this somehow works for freedom of the individual.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
"I have difficulty seeing that as a public purpose. I also have difficulty seeing it pass in a democratic society. "

So? Does this mean YOU get to decide what the purposes are? Or is this the magical "society"?

"
So were FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon, all of whom were US presidents when we had conscription, Communists? Was Abe Lincoln a Communist? Is anyone who isnt a libertarian a Communist?"

And Hitler, Saddam, Kim from NK, Pol Pot... you have no point.

"Fortunately I live here and am old enough to remember some things. The granting of the vote to 18 YO's was specifically justified on the grounds of "old enough to fight, old enough to vote". Previously the voting age was 21. It seems absurd therefore to say that 19 YOs non-voting behavior makes national service unjust."

Yeah, but this was just an added bonus to waht you consider a very democratic way of handling things. Meaning that in practice many of these cats never had the chance to vote. Not that it would make any difference, since you think this somehow works for freedom of the individual.

I dont know what youre talking about.

[Pekka]

LOTM, it's possible. I'm talking about a natiowide mandatory service for everyone.

[Lonestar]

Here Ozzy, let's make this simple...show me the SCOTUS ruling that supports the idea that the Draft is prohibited by the 13 Amendment.


Take your time.