Amendment 13 And A Military Draft

[TheHammer]

Asked and already answered. The harshness of punishment isn't relevant. What is relevant that there are rules that bind both sides. Slaves lived at the whim of their masters. Soldiers do not. If you can't see that difference then there's really no reason to continue this discussion.

Like I said, I see jail cells for those who refuse the draft or are absent without leave from their military unit. I see prison and possible execution for deserting a military unit. I see all of that as lawful punishments for those who volunteer and I see it as an unconstitutional violation of the 13th amendment for those conscripted/involuntarily forced into slavery. If you can't accept the literal elementary definition in every dictionary for "slavery" and "Involuntary servitude" then you're either linguistically challenged or authoritarian prejudiced and your only actual constitutional solution to your personal problem is to amend the Constitution to exempt military conscription from the constitutional restraints amendment 13 mandates therewith. Otherwise you have no respect for, or honest acceptance of, or loyalty to the Constitution, you propose and support its being violated.

What do you have to fear? If the majority agree with you and an amendment to exempt conscription from the 13th amendment should be a piece of cake and there's where your support and arguments should be.

 

[Gaius46]

Like I said, I see jail cells for those who refuse the draft or are absent without leave from their military unit. I see prison and possible execution for deserting a military unit. I see all of that as lawful punishments for those who volunteer and I see it as an unconstitutional violation of the 13th amendment for those conscripted/involuntarily forced into slavery. If you can't accept the literal elementary definition in every dictionary for "slavery" and "Involuntary servitude" then you're either linguistically challenged or authoritarian prejudiced and your only actual constitutional solution to your personal problem is to amend the Constitution to exempt military conscription from the constitutional restraints amendment 13 mandates therewith. Otherwise you have no respect for, or honest acceptance of, or loyalty to the Constitution, you propose and support its being violated.

What do you have to fear? If the majority agree with you and an amendment to exempt conscription from the 13th amendment should be a piece of cake and there's where your support and arguments should be.

I accept the literal definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude. Under those definitions conscription is not slavery or involuntary servitude. The important point about both is that the slave is completely subject to the whims of someone else. A slaveholder could shoot a slave in the head for any reason or no reason. A military commander cannot do that to a conscript. That is an essential difference.


What exactly are we discussing here because you've covered a bunch of things that aren't part of the discussion as far as I know.

If the discussion is about whether or not the 13th amendment outlaws military conscription the answer in practice is "no." There are SC rulings to that effect.

If the discussion is whether the 13th should be interpreted to outlaw military conscription then my personal answer based on my understanding of the meaning of the words (see above) and the intent of the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment is again "no" because all the evidence I see says to me those people did not intend for the 13th amendment to outlaw conscription and didn't equate conscription with slavery.

If the discussion is whether a free society should have a draft then, in theory at least, you and I probably agree that it shouldn't. In practice I don't know that that is actually workable.

 

[apdst]

Quote Amendment 13: 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. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.


I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.


The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.


Why am I wrong?

Miliyary service isn't "servitude".

 

[Henrin]

Amendment 13 says what it says and when disagreement about what words mean comes up you look at legislative history, contemporary writing and history itself to figure out what the words mean. Here the disagreement is on the meaning of the words "involuntary servitude."

The American Revolution, The War of 1812 and the Civil War was all fought with conscripted soldiers. In the case of the Civil War about 8% of the Union force was either conscripts or people paid to replace conscripts. And those conscripts were needed given the length of the war, desertion rates and casualties. To think that the drafters of the 13th would have meant to include conscription in "involuntary servitude" given the nation's history and what they just went through a couple of years previous is a flight of fancy. But if you want to take that flight be my guest. Very few people and more importantly history disagrees with you.

If they didn't mean to include the draft then they should have added another exception besides duly convicted of a crime. Since being born in the US as a man and staying until you're eighteen years old is not a crime then the draft would clearly not qualify under the exception listed.

 

[Henrin]

Miliyary service isn't "servitude".

So being drafted doesn't force you under the control of the state in complete fashion?

Can a drafted man leave and not fight in the war?
Can a drafted man not show up for training?
Can a drafted man decide to not follow orders?
Can a drafted man go where he pleases when he pleases?

Tell me how a drafted man is not servant of the state against his will.

 

[Henrin]

Asked and already answered. The harshness of punishment isn't relevant. What is relevant that there are rules that bind both sides. Slaves lived at the whim of their masters. Soldiers do not. If you can't see that difference then there's really no reason to continue this discussion.

So can a drafted man just decide to not show up, train and fight in the war? Can he just decide he doesn't want to follow whatever orders are given to him?

 

[Henrin]

I accept the literal definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude. Under those definitions conscription is not slavery or involuntary servitude. The important point about both is that the slave is completely subject to the whims of someone else. A slaveholder could shoot a slave in the head for any reason or no reason. A military commander cannot do that to a conscript. That is an essential difference.


What exactly are we discussing here because you've covered a bunch of things that aren't part of the discussion as far as I know.

If the discussion is about whether or not the 13th amendment outlaws military conscription the answer in practice is "no." There are SC rulings to that effect.

If the discussion is whether the 13th should be interpreted to outlaw military conscription then my personal answer based on my understanding of the meaning of the words (see above) and the intent of the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment is again "no" because all the evidence I see says to me those people did not intend for the 13th amendment to outlaw conscription and didn't equate conscription with slavery.

If the discussion is whether a free society should have a draft then, in theory at least, you and I probably agree that it shouldn't. In practice I don't know that that is actually workable.

Lol. So the slave owner decided to put a rule on themselves that they wouldn't kill their slave. That is the big difference to you, seriously? Who exactly is going to do **** about the state doing whatever they want to the draftee? Anybody at all? No, so why even list restrictions on their actions when we both know they don't exist.

 

[apdst]

So being drafted doesn't force you under the control of the state in complete fashion?

Can a drafted man leave and not fight in the war?
Can a drafted man not show up for training?
Can a drafted man decide to not follow orders?
Can a drafted man go where he pleases when he pleases?

Tell me how a drafted man is not servant of the state against his will.

Is someone who enlists, a slave?

Can an enlisted man leave and not fight in the war?
Can an enlisted man not show up for training?
Can an enlisted man decide to not follow orders?
Can an enlisted man go where he pleases when he pleases?

 

[Henrin]

Is someone who enlists, a slave?

Someone that enlisted decided on their own free will to sign up.

 

[Gaius46]

Lol. So the slave owner decided to put a rule on themselves that they wouldn't kill their slave. That is the big difference to you, seriously? Who exactly is going to do **** about the state doing whatever they want to the draftee? Anybody at all? No, so why even list restrictions on their actions when we both know they don't exist.

Meaningless. Slaveholders operate based on their whim. The military does not.

Conscripts and volunteers are subject to the same exact rules and are treated identically.

Conscription in America predates the founding of the country, it was an integral part of the colonial militia system and was used in every war since including the civil war. An exception for military conscription wasn't needed for the 13th because the drafters of that amendment did not view conscription as slavery.

 

[chromium]

I agree, it is slavery, they basically own you

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Article one covers it pretty clearly to me.

There is always Canada as option II for those who don't want to serve.

No there's not, Canada will not admit people as immigrants to avoid military service, that ended with Vietnam.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So can a drafted man just decide to not show up, train and fight in the war? Can he just decide he doesn't want to follow whatever orders are given to him?

Yes, and Yes.

Of course they may be subject to censure, prison, or the death penalty for refusal, but sure you can always refuse to perform a specific act.

 

[Port & Starboard]

No there's not, Canada will not admit people as immigrants to avoid military service, that ended with Vietnam.

Sweeeeet! Now the poor bastards will have to stay here and suck it up.

But, my money is on Trudeau reversing the recent actions of Harper.

https://news.vice.com/article/these...the-iraq-war-may-finally-get-refuge-in-canada

 

[Henrin]

Yes, and Yes.

Of course they may be subject to censure, prison, or the death penalty for refusal, but sure you can always refuse to perform a specific act.

So it's like the slave that can technically not obey their owner if they don't mind being beaten.

 

[Henrin]

Meaningless. Slaveholders operate based on their whim. The military does not.

Conscripts and volunteers are subject to the same exact rules and are treated identically.

Conscription in America predates the founding of the country, it was an integral part of the colonial militia system and was used in every war since including the civil war. An exception for military conscription wasn't needed for the 13th because the drafters of that amendment did not view conscription as slavery.

And yet it is slavery making it necessary for them to list it as an exception. I'm also fully aware conscripts are treated the same, which just so happens to make it inescapable and provide the conscript with no real freedom to speak of.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So it's like the slave that can technically not obey their owner if they don't mind being beaten.

except soldiers are not slaves, so that comparison kinda fails on that point.

 

[Henrin]

except soldiers are not slaves, so that comparison kinda fails on that point.

Except they kind of are with the rules as they currently exist.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Except they kind of are with the rules as they currently exist.

No they're not, slavery is illegal, conscription is not, so as the rules exist they are not the same.

 

[Henrin]

No they're not, slavery is illegal, conscription is not, so as the rules exist they are not the same.

And how does the court define slavery? Last time I checked they define it as the conditions of black slavery. Do you see any problems with that definition? Like maybe that it ignores that there is different kinds of slavery perhaps.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

And how does the court define slavery? Last time I checked they define it as the conditions of black slavery. Do you see any problems with that definition? Like maybe that it ignores that there is different kinds of slavery perhaps.

Well do you see a problem with that definition? I'm not entirely convinced you don't support black slavery

 

[Henrin]

Well do you see a problem with that definition? I'm not entirely convinced you don't support black slavery

Yes. They are using a point of reference in history of slavery to speak towards all of the history and future of slavery.

What makes the whole situation worse however is that the courts aren't even honest with the reasoning they have established. They proved this without a doubt when trying to rationalize civil right laws. Instead of noticing that both black slaves and the motel in question had to deal with forced labor they just ignored it and stated the two situations were different and had nothing in common.

 

[Tigerace117]

Except they kind of are with the rules as they currently exist.

No, they really aren't. You can't sell soldiers, or brutally whip them, or sell off their families, or rape their wives. All of which were things which happened to slaves quite a bit.

So no, the "conscription=slavery" argument holds no water.

 

[Henrin]

No, they really aren't. You can't sell soldiers, or brutally whip them, or sell off their families, or rape their wives. All of which were things which happened to slaves quite a bit.

So no, the "conscription=slavery" argument holds no water.

So do you think slave owners made rules for the rest of their family to follow when it came to their slaves? Do you think that those rules could possibly be to not rape, sell or whip them?

 

[Tigerace117]

So do you think slave owners made rules for the rest of their family to follow when it came to his slaves? Do you think that those rules could possibly be to not rape, sell or whip them?

Nope, historically speaking most slave owners were remarkably tolerant of such actions.

Once again, the "conscription is slavery" argument is dumb.