Amendment 13 And A Military Draft

[Master PO]

Slavery came before the 13th, so it doesn't work for slavery?

do you really think the USSC is going to take away the power of the federal government to conscript people for war?

my case against conscription is, it violates the founding principles of America which the federal government by u.s. federal enabling laws has recognized.

how does the federal government recognize something as fact and then violate it?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

so the only war worth fighting is where we are attacked?

no humanitarian causes are worth our effort?

no global dictators are worth stopping unless they attack us first?

just trying to get your stance on what is and isnt our role in the world as it stands today

i know a lot of people feel we should become isolationsist, and let other countries fend for themselves

are you of that mindset?

I think The Hammer is saying, and I agree, that none of the scenarios you mention justify a draft. The only thing that would justify a draft is if America itself is under attack, and in that case a draft would be unnecessary.

 

[gdgyva]

I think The Hammer is saying, and I agree, that none of the scenarios you mention justify a draft. The only thing that would justify a draft is if America itself is under attack, and in that case a draft would be unnecessary.

so depending on our needs, our presidents wishes(not just this one, but all to come), our international role in the world, and the many crazies of the world....what if a voluntary force wasnt enough?

what then? how do you suppose the president raise "his/her" army besides conscription?

i know, a lot of supposition....

we gratefully have enough volunteers now to handle the needs of our country....but it is entirely possible for that to not be true next year, or five years from now

i dont have a problem with the draft....my family has served for generations

most were not career military, like me....i served 6 years active, and another 4 in the active reserve

just wondering your thoughts on where we go if a voluntary force isnt enough.....what then?

 

[joG]

Interpret please!

What better than to protect the citizens from harm would you form a state?

 

[Port & Starboard]

So, you can't articulate how and why Article one covers it for you? Amusing!

Actually I don't care if I am amusing to you or not, but Article 1, section 8, clause 12 clearly states that the congress has the authority to raise an army and fund it for 2 years

 

[Master PO]

Actually I don't care if I am amusing to you or not, but Article 1, section 8, clause 12 clearly states that the congress has the authority to raise an army and fund it for 2 years

Article 1, section 8, clause 12 does not allowed for conscription.

 

[Visbek]

If a soldier is forced to serve in a war against his/her will, why is that not "involuntary servitude?"

Because they can't be commanded to do whatever the generals or CIC wants them to. I.e. I'm pretty sure the CIC cannot command the 4th Infantry to pick grapes in upstate New York on commercial farms, just because he says so. Soldiers are conscripted to defend the nation, not fulfill the arbitrary or commercial whims of the commanders.

It is also settled law that Congress does have this power, including the ability to compel citizens to fulfill a duty to defend the nation, even if they'd prefer to sit on their couch and watch TV.

A Congress is not able to declare wars and raise armies without enslaving citizens to serve involuntarily in the military because?

Congress can raise a volunteer army. They've done so repeatedly. There is no barrier to doing so. And the ability to do so does not void their power to conscript soldiers as required.

Rather, there may be times and conditions where a volunteer army is insufficient to defend the nation and its interests. In those cases, Congress drafts soldiers.

Not that hard to figure out.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Article 1, section 8, clause 12 does not allowed for conscription.

Then explain to me how we go about raising a Army? The USSC is filled with much brighter minds than anyone on this forum, so I will take their ruling on it over what some keyboard jocks making threads on the issue.

 

[Fishking]

BIt is also settled law that Congress does have this power, including the ability to compel citizens to fulfill a duty to defend the nation, even if they'd prefer to sit on their couch and watch TV.

What is settled law and who said it was?

 

[Master PO]

Then explain to me how we go about raising a Army? The USSC is filled with much brighter minds than anyone on this forum, so I will take their ruling on it over what some keyboard jocks making threads on the issue.

well for 1 in the time of the founders, the federal government has no authority over the people, none, therefore it cannot create laws on them to make them do anything.

if the founders believed in conscription, they certainly would have done it during the war of 1812, since that was terrible time for America with Washington burned and American's defeat at The Battle of Bladensburg.

also to conscript people would violate the founding principles of America in the DOI, which the constitution upholds.

 

[Port & Starboard]

well for 1 in the time of the founders, the federal government has no authority over the people, none, therefore it cannot create laws on them to make them do anything.

if the founders believed in conscription, they certainly would have done it during the war of 1812, since that was terrible time for America with Washington burned and American'S defeat at The Battle of Bladensburg.

also to conscript people would violate the founding principles of America in the DOI, which the constitution upholds.

You are going off of your own theory and opinion and I respect that, but you are not explaining how congress doesn't have the right to raise a army as ruled by the USSC. Do we offer frequent traveler coupons to the ones that join the army voluntarily, or offer the objectors a free ride to the Ambassador Bridge.

 

[Master PO]

You are going off of your own theory and opinion and I respect that, but you are not explaining how congress doesn't have the right to raise a army as ruled by the USSC. Do we offer frequent traveler coupons to the ones that join the army voluntarily, or offer the objectors a free ride to the Ambassador Bridge.

if you like i will post the founders for you, Madison and Hamilton both state the federal government has no powers concerning the lives liberty or property of the people, the USSC also uphold his view of the founders.

congress can raise an army but not by force.

 

[Visbek]

What is settled law and who said it was?

"Settled law" means that no one with any serious credentials or standing is challenging a draft that doesn't even exist anymore, and it's not getting anywhere near the SCOTUS again any time soon. Sort of like the legal status of same-sex marriage.

As to who says so, SCOTUS in 1918, and pretty much every court since.

 

[Port & Starboard]

if you like i will post the founders for you, Madison and Hamilton both state the federal government has no powers concerning the lives liberty or property of the people, the USSC also uphold his view of the founders.

congress can raise an army but not by force.

The Selective Service is the law. I know what Madison and Hamilton said, but they also stood by and watched neutral people attacked for not supporting the fight and did nothing about it..

 

[Fishking]

"Settled law" means that no one with any serious credentials or standing is challenging a draft that doesn't even exist anymore, and it's not getting anywhere near the SCOTUS again any time soon. Sort of like the legal status of same-sex marriage.

As to who says so, SCOTUS in 1918, and pretty much every court since.

Ah...so an old SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS rulings are by no means settled law. If it were so, we wouldn't see decisions overturned or multiple challenges going up over the same thing.

That aside, we'll have to see if it gets challenged and overturned in the future if another draft is implemented as then there will be people who have standing for a case. You may be right, it may not be overturned but there are a lot of things that have been allowed to happen that maybe shouldn't have. Using the draft for Vietnam is a good example of something that should not have happened. It was not an existential threat to the U.S.

 

[Master PO]

The Selective Service is the law. I know what Madison and Hamilton said, but they also stood by and watched neutral people attacked for not supporting the fight and did nothing about it..

it is federal law created in the 20th century, but the constitution of the founders does not allow for conscription

what right are you referring to?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

so depending on our needs, our presidents wishes(not just this one, but all to come), our international role in the world, and the many crazies of the world....what if a voluntary force wasnt enough?

what then? how do you suppose the president raise "his/her" army besides conscription?

i know, a lot of supposition....

we gratefully have enough volunteers now to handle the needs of our country....but it is entirely possible for that to not be true next year, or five years from now

i dont have a problem with the draft....my family has served for generations

most were not career military, like me....i served 6 years active, and another 4 in the active reserve

just wondering your thoughts on where we go if a voluntary force isnt enough.....what then?

I served 20 years and my personal view is if a volunteer force isn't enough to wage a war that our President wants then he doesn't get to wage the war. I believe the draft is wrong.

 

[Visbek]

Ah...so an old SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS rulings are by no means settled law.

Yeah, they pretty much are.

It is very rare for the SCOTUS to overturn its own rulings. It does happen, but IIRC it's around 1% of cases, and usually it's only a partial change. In many cases, it's easier or preferable to ratify an amendment rather than take a case to the SCOTUS in the hopes of overturning an earlier ruling.

Further, there has been no serious challenge to Arver v. United States in the past 99 years. I may be wrong, but I don't think any cases made serious headway during the Vietnam War.

Short of an amendment barring conscription, I'd say this one is done.

 

[Visbek]

I served 20 years and my personal view is if a volunteer force isn't enough to wage a war that our President wants then he doesn't get to wage the war. I believe the draft is wrong.

I may be a horrible idea or unethical... but it's Constitutional.

Makes ya think, huh?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I may be a horrible idea or unethical... but it's Constitutional.

Makes ya think, huh?

Yep. What is ethical and what is legal don't always match.

 

[TheHammer]

The reconstruction amendments dealt specifically with abolishing the institution of slavery and the drafters of those amendments, or pretty much anyone else, would not have seen conscription as being a form of slavery.

Then the 13th amendment should have made exception for conscription shouldn't it?

If conscription isn't slavery and or involuntary servitude, WHAT THE BLEEP IS IT?

 

[TheHammer]

so the only war worth fighting is where we are attacked?

no humanitarian causes are worth our effort?

no global dictators are worth stopping unless they attack us first?

just trying to get your stance on what is and isnt our role in the world as it stands today

i know a lot of people feel we should become isolationsist, and let other countries fend for themselves

are you of that mindset?

The only wars worth fighting are those that are first debated and declared by the Congress. If Congress thinks what you propose above is worthy of a declaration of war and presents one to a President, all those who agree and wish to volunteer to fight it are free to do so. If the war is truly worthy I suggest there'd be no problem getting volunteers.

 

[TheHammer]

What better than to protect the citizens from harm would you form a state?

Protecting the people from harm is a subjective opinionated conversation. How is sending "the people" into a war involuntarily protecting them from harm?

 

[TheHammer]

Actually I don't care if I am amusing to you or not, but Article 1, section 8, clause 12 clearly states that the congress has the authority to raise an army and fund it for 2 years

And in your opinion that gives the Congress the power, right and duty to enslave citizens to involuntary military service and send them into life and limb threatening battles, correct?

 

[TheHammer]

Because they can't be commanded to do whatever the generals or CIC wants them to. I.e. I'm pretty sure the CIC cannot command the 4th Infantry to pick grapes in upstate New York on commercial farms, just because he says so. Soldiers are conscripted to defend the nation, not fulfill the arbitrary or commercial whims of the commanders.

It is also settled law that Congress does have this power, including the ability to compel citizens to fulfill a duty to defend the nation, even if they'd prefer to sit on their couch and watch TV.



Congress can raise a volunteer army. They've done so repeatedly. There is no barrier to doing so. And the ability to do so does not void their power to conscript soldiers as required.

Rather, there may be times and conditions where a volunteer army is insufficient to defend the nation and its interests. In those cases, Congress drafts soldiers.

Not that hard to figure out.

There is no enumerated power given to the Congress by the Constitution, (settled law or no settled law) to enslave or involuntarily force military service on anybody. As a matter of pure fact, the 13th amendment prohibits it.