A service obligation for young adults

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Mandatory schooling is not involuntary servitude and is not unconstitutional.

maybe so, but on a bright spring day with a light wind and open beaches, it really,really, really, stinks for the kids

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Regardless... did you have a point to make with your lie in the prior post, or was is just an opportunity to get a bash in?

My point was that Republicans need to lose their fantasy notion that they're the party of patriotic soldiers, and the Democrats are the party of draft dodging pacifists. The old guard of people like Bush Sr and Dole have retired. (Of course Reagan played a soldier in Hollywood) After McCain, they have at least as many draft dodging wimps as the Democrats, and quite possibly more.

Every time someone wants to bring up Clinton, you need only look at Bush Jr, Chaney, and Qualye.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government.

Government run, mandatory schooling. Compare/contrast.

Mandatory schooling is not involuntary servitude and is not unconstitutional.

How is it not? The kids are being forced to do something (in this case, their "work" is going to school) against their will at the threat of punishment, and they're certainly not getting paid for it... how does that not fit the definition?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lindsey 0]

How is it not? The kids are being forced to do something (in this case, their "work" is going to school) against their will at the threat of punishment, and they're certainly not getting paid for it... how does that not fit the definition?

I hope you don't really believe what you're saying, and are just using it for the sake of argument.

Children, having no rights, have to do LOTS of things involuntarily. They aren't allowed to make life-decisions for themselves, so ALL of the choices about them at this age are "involuntary."

There was a time when only rich kids could be educated, and the poor kids were put to work, involuntarily, by their parents....real work....labor.

Whether it's labor or education, the choice is not the child's to make. Never was. However, when children are deemed by society to be capable of deciding what they wish to do with regards to work/education, they're allowed to make that decision for themselves. At 16 they're still minors, but can choose to quit school to become emancipated, get a job....whatever.

At the age that people are capable of choosing, THEN forcing a particular path upon them...military or civil....is a different issue, and the issue of "involuntary servitude" becomes a little more descriptive of the situation.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[mnealtx 0]

Hi Linz -

Yes, I'm using it for the sake of argument. To further play devil's advocate - neither the amendment nor chapter of the USC referring to involuntary servitude make any reference to age.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"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."

Amendment XIII, US Constitution.

Explain how this proposal does not constitute involuntary servitude.

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery

What does European behavior have to do with the US Constitution? If it's legal there, it's legal there. If it's illegal here, it's illegal HERE.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the USA.

And that is that until the Constitution is amended.

Then explain how the Draft was legal. I see no difference between it and a mandatory Service Obligation. I think this type of requirement would be extremely beneficial to the US. I also believe it should be extended as an immigration requirement to anyone desiring to be a U.S. resident.

But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A.

You Americans are so IGNORANT of your own laws:

US Constitution, Article I section 8 allows for a draft.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Where does any of that address compulsory military service? "Calling forth the Militia" does not in any way specify whether or not membership is voluntary.

I think the only conclusion we can draw is that the draft is and always was unconstitutional.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Where does any of that address compulsory military service? "Calling forth the Militia" does not in any way specify whether or not membership is voluntary.

I think the only conclusion we can draw is that the draft is and always was unconstitutional.

Well, it only took about 10 seconds to debunk that...

Quote

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government.

Government run, mandatory schooling. Compare/contrast.

Mandatory schooling is not involuntary servitude and is not unconstitutional.

How is it not? The kids are being forced to do something (in this case, their "work" is going to school) against their will at the threat of punishment, and they're certainly not getting paid for it... how does that not fit the definition?

Suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Yea, it's so untidy when the little people have lawyers arguing for them - harder to screw them individually.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.

Can't defend your point?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Quote

Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

Shall we look at Bush's and Cheney's service?

Quote

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

Shall we look at Bush's military records? Can we weed through all the blacked out portions of it? Shall we discuss how Bush was the first president with military service who didn't voluntarily post his service record as public record?

We can look at all of the Bush cabinet and find it hard to locate much military service versus current Democratic politicians.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Lets face it. If it becomes mandatory to serve they might as well open the borders to Canada because the cry baby liberals will just burn their draft cards again (& hopefully a bra or two) and move. Thus creating a better society for us to live in here in the U.S.

Which of the following eligible young men went to Vietnam in their youth?

Dick Cheney
George W. Bush
Tom Delay
Jeb Bush
Dennis Hastert
J. Danforth Quayle
Newt Gingrich
Trent Lott


I guess they're all liberals!

Hahahaha

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Where does any of that address compulsory military service? "Calling forth the Militia" does not in any way specify whether or not membership is voluntary.

I think the only conclusion we can draw is that the draft is and always was unconstitutional.

Well, it only took about 10 seconds to debunk that...

Quote

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Very good, speedy!

Unfortunately, what you quoted has the force of a law and does not trump the constitution. If challenged, it could conceivably be overturned by the Supreme Court (though I doubt that will happen).

Chew on this if you have the time (it's from that liberal rag, Capitalism Magazine):

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1284

The Military Draft and Draft Registration Versus Freedom

by George F. Smith (December 17, 2001)

No organization has done more for the federal government than al Qaeda. What other group could free it of so much restraint?

Our elected officials swear to support and defend the U. S. Constitution as part of their oath of office. We, the people, through the Constitution, delegated to Congress the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal . . . [and] to raise and support Armies." Nowhere does the Constitution say how it should raise and support the military, but it does provide clear guidelines.

One of the cracks in the foundation of our early nation was the abomination of slavery, "a system based on using the enforced labor of other people," according to the Encarta dictionary. Government eventually abolished it outright with the thirteenth amendment, though the Bill of Rights had made it legally groundless all along. The amendment doesn't just outlaw slavery in the antebellum sense -- it prohibits any form of compulsory servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

Thus, the Constitution says to Congress, "Raise an army, but do it with volunteers."

So how is it we've had a military draft?

Mostly, by means of the same justification given for other intrusions on our liberty: crisis.

Wars threaten the existence of the state. They must be won at all costs. Until fairly recently in human history, one of the requirements for winning was a large number of ground troops. If those troops can't be acquired voluntarily, the state forces young men into the armed services at the point of a gun.

Of course, it's never presented in such raw terms. We usually hear talk about the privilege young men have to serve their country. If they should happen to miss that message, it's Uncle Sam's job to convince them with a letter of greetings. There is no ugliness if we don't use ugly words.

Serving one's country is also regarded as patriotic. But it all depends on what the country's doing. If it's fighting an aggressor to preserve our freedom, then the cause is just and will attract volunteers. Serving when the cause is obscure or unjust amounts to blind nationalism.

In a country that values freedom, politicians carry the burden of ensuring we don't get involved in armed conflicts that aren't a threat to our national security. Acting as the world's cop has hardly kept us out of trouble.

It's been argued that even in "just" wars, enlistments wouldn't always meet manpower needs, and therefore a draft is the only solution. Why not boost the pay for volunteers? When private firms need additional manpower, they don't resort to hiring at gunpoint. Are we appalled at being defended by mercenaries? We deal with mercenaries everyday -- career military personnel are mercenaries, as is anyone in the business community who works for money. But such people are usually called professionals. Would you rather be defended by professionals or low-wage draftees? If anyone deserves top pay, it's a soldier willing to kill and risk his or her life to defend our freedom.

Congressman Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the draft and has advocated ditching the selective service and giving the funds instead to the Veterans Administration, which is typically underfunded. "Even the military agrees that the Selective Service System is an ineffective hold-over from a different age," Rep. Paul said earlier this year.

And yet the Selective Service System web site states: "By having the names and addresses of men 18 through 25 years old on file with the SSS, America remains ready to face any threat."

Though we've had no draft since 1973, many are calling for conscription now -- and not just for the military. Statists want to force every youth in this country to serve in some capacity and are clamoring to join in the power grab of the current crisis. Those unfit for the military or who qualify as conscientious objectors would be sent grazing somewhere in the homeland. It shouldn't be surprising -- altruists have been singing the servitude song for all eternity. Getting the government involved adds legalized force to their refrain.

"[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral," President Reagan once said. "[A] draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending."

Anyone who champions freedom will oppose the initiation of physical force in all forms. Conscription promotes the indignity of slavery and makes a mockery of our Constitution. "Not only is the notion of involuntary servitude at odds with our system of law and tradition of liberty, " Rep. Paul said, "but it is not in keeping with the needs and demands of a 21st Century defense program."


References:

* http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
* http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr050301..htm - End the Draft - Ron Paul
* http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr090999win.htm - House votes to end draft - Ron Paul
* http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm - A Republic, if you can keep it - Ron Paul
* http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude/ - Ayn Rand Institute's Campaign against Servitude
* http://www.sss.gov/press-7-11-01.htm - Selective Service

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

when McCain is gone, the GOP faithful will finally have to give up the Canada remarks for good. (Though I thought that would have ended already after Bush Sr. retired)

In the last election, the best they could do for their draft dodging buddy is to say Kerry wasn't as much of a war veteren as he claimed.

Draft dodging buddy?

News flash for ya - Clinton wasn't a contender in the last election.

I think he was talking about JW Bush, the war dodger.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.

Can't defend your point?

Do we have to explain EVERY LITTLE THING to you?

Receiving an education does NOT constitute involuntary servitude.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

surrender before I make you cry.

Since Clinton, the Democrats put up Gore and Kerry, both Vietnam vets. Go to the other side - after the former WWII navy pilot/parachutist and head of the CIA, you have Qualye, Shrub, and Chaney. 3 draft dodgers that did Clinton proud.

Denigrate it all you want, he *did* serve.

The difference is that you hold it as a badge of pride that Clinton dodged his responsibility...I hold it as a badge of shame.

BTW...did you know that Kerry was in Vietnam?

That's like saying a kid dropped out of school actually was a participant in high school. OK< technically he walked through the doors and occassionally sat in class, but most of the time he was engaged in smoking dope outside, so realistically that kid had nothing to do with HS.

Bush had nothing to do with the military, exceot now he sends thousands off to die, something he wanted no part of.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.

Can't defend your point?

don't bother, he has a very difficult times with analogies. it's kind of like a badminton and a dart

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"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."

Amendment XIII, US Constitution.

Explain how this proposal does not constitute involuntary servitude.

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery

What does European behavior have to do with the US Constitution? If it's legal there, it's legal there. If it's illegal here, it's illegal HERE.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the USA.

And that is that until the Constitution is amended.

Then explain how the Draft was legal. I see no difference between it and a mandatory Service Obligation. I think this type of requirement would be extremely beneficial to the US. I also believe it should be extended as an immigration requirement to anyone desiring to be a U.S. resident.

But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A.

So the founding fathers were a bunch of liberals?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Wrong. It will never happen because it's unconstitutional. (Not that that seems to worry the Neo Cons)

Doesn't seem to worry the Libs, either...to give credit where it's due.

Should we be worried that we have a Constitution that is followed? Would it be less worrisome if the leaders of the US refused to follow the Constitution?

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.

Can't defend your point?

don't bother, he has a very difficult times with analogies. it's kind of like a badminton and a dart

Do you think receiving an education constitutes "servitude"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

That's a very good point - if it was military service, and done as a draft, it would not be unconstitutional.

"Drafting" people for Peace Corp/Park Restoration Corp/Et Cetera Corp would result in the little darlings suing under the Involuntary Servitude Amendment and 18 USC as mentioned above.

Yep, and don't forget, if Kerry had this as part of his platform, the Libs would have supported it.

Please don't make the argument that libs are lock-stepped. A leberal can be pro-gun and be considered liberal, but a conservative can't be pro-choice and be considered a neo-con.

There is a lot of alttitude within the leberal community, unlike the neo-cons.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Libs!! Libs!! Libs!!
Gag me with a fucking spoon.

You guys really think, no matter what the topic, that just by barfing out the "L-word" that that amounts to genuine thought, analysis and argument?
It's an idiotic approach to virtually any discussion.

Do understand that this is a very tough time for neo-cons. Sure, they're excited to have control of the entire country, but since it's scorching into the ground at Mach20, they have no one to blame and are relegated to defending Bush for attempting to give the ports to the UAE.

Neo-cons have nothing to be proud of and nothing to hang their hat on that supports Bush, so they are relegated to saying.....

G.D. Liberals....

Feel sorry for them.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Do you think receiving an education constitutes "servitude"?

Nope, that's not the analogy he's making.

Do you think that being rigid and purposefully unwilling to see another's side, just for the sake of giving someone a hard time, is a good characteristic of an educator?

( it's a great characteristic for a debator, and adds needed conflict and opportunities for quips)

It's normal, technical types hate analogies. Heck, they even hate it when someone restates a concept using another set of wording. Taking the next step to finding value in a comparison is way out of the comfort zone.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Americans are big on their freedoms and don't get me wrong I think freedom is an awesome thing definitely worth fighting for. But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government. Is this America promoting this or have I entered the Twilight Zone.

How is serving your own country giving up freedoms? If I was forced to serve another country, I would consider it giving up freedoms. Freedom isn't free, it requires people to participate.

That is along the lines of flag-burning debates. It's chicken /egg all the way.

In order to be free, we must serve in the military.... are we free if we have a compulsary obligation? Etc...., this is a circular argument if we propose mandatory anything and throw in a teaspoon of this concept of freedom.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government.

Government run, mandatory schooling. Compare/contrast.

Mandatory schooling is not involuntary servitude and is not unconstitutional.

How is it not? The kids are being forced to do something (in this case, their "work" is going to school) against their will at the threat of punishment, and they're certainly not getting paid for it... how does that not fit the definition?

Ever hear of home schooling? Perhaps this concept that schooling is tantamount to the draft explains your use of abstract argument.