You do know that the framers of the constitution had nothing to do with the 13th Amendment? It was added to the Constitution in 1865 and had pretty much nothing to do with indentured servants, but was intended to eliminate slavery. Indentured servants as a class pretty much disappeared during the colonial periord/early Revolutionary era.
is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?
- Thread starter drychlick
- Start date
You do know that the framers of the constitution had nothing to do with the 13th Amendment? It was added to the Constitution in 1865 and had pretty much nothing to do with indentured servants, but was intended to eliminate slavery. Indentured servants as a class pretty much disappeared during the colonial periord/early Revolutionary era.
I can't imagine China and America ever getting into a serious war. A few border skirmishes? Sure, why not. But a full scale war? Not a chance.
By the framers, RJDiogenes was referring to the framers (aka drafters) of the 13th Amendment, not of the original Constitution itself.
While I'll admit that the intent of the drafters of the 13th Amendment is a weakness in my argument, it's not dispositive. We recognize several rights that are found nowhere in the original intent of the drafters. (Whether that's a good idea or a bad idea is a subject for another debate.) Some 14th Amendment examples include the right to marital privacy (as seen in Griswold v Connecticut), and the right to engage in consensual sexual relationships (as seen in Lawrence v Texas).
While I'll admit that the intent of the drafters of the 13th Amendment is a weakness in my argument, it's not dispositive. We recognize several rights that are found nowhere in the original intent of the drafters. (Whether that's a good idea or a bad idea is a subject for another debate.) Some 14th Amendment examples include the right to marital privacy (as seen in Griswold v Connecticut), and the right to engage in consensual sexual relationships (as seen in Lawrence v Texas).
Why would it only have to be military service? Forest service, Coast Guard, Census Takers, Embassy staff, etc. Anything involving travel. Two years of volunteer work might expand young peoples horizons and make them appreciate what we have here just a bit more.
Spoken like a true 47 year old.
Spoken like a true 47 year old.
No, I don't want to be forced to fight in a slave army.
If we were involved in a war so huge that the fate of our country was at stake and there weren't enough people volunteering to let us win...then frankly we don't deserve to survive as a country.
If we were involved in a war so huge that the fate of our country was at stake and there weren't enough people volunteering to let us win...then frankly we don't deserve to survive as a country.
Well I would tend to think that at that point it would be every man for himself and his family, fuck the nation.
Bad idea. The US Army couldn't handle it and the command structure steadfastly doesn't want it. Being a former NCO there is no way in hell I would want to deal with conscripts who don't want to be there. Conceptually I am against it as well. If a nation can't even raise enough volunteers, no matter the cause, then perhaps it needs to fade away.
I agree with you Frontline. Dealing with volunter Soldiers with attitudes is painful enough. I sure as heck don't want to deal with draftees who don't care at all.
And just for the record, Combats Arms has always surpassed its recruiting goals since 9/11. We do have a good amount of young men who want to go out and kill bad guys.
It is only support jobs that often suffer from manpower shortages.
It is only support jobs that often suffer from manpower shortages.
Rii
Rear Admiral
QFMFT. A government that seeks to make slaves of its citizens is illegitimate and should be opposed by any means necessary. Over my mind and body I alone am sovereign.
Last edited:
Wanting to and believing it's necessary are two different things. And obviously enough people weren't signing up.
Sometimes, sadly, it is necessary to fight to preserve the existence of your civilized society. And, as I said, in a Democracy your neighbor "forces" you to do countless things.
Yes, that's right; I thought it was obvious.
Indeed. But interpreting it to include supporting the country itself would also outlaw everything from Jury Duty to paying any form of taxes. The abolition of slavery wasn't intended to dismantle the country.
No, it references both slavery and involuntary servitude separately. Involuntary servitude has been interpreted in multiple ways.
Exactly.
But as I said, that interpretation is a slippery slope that would end all requirements of civic duty.
No, it just makes that method of implementation unConstitutional.
Then that's just too damn bad for the military and the government. Either offer better incentives, convince people its right and they need to do it for their own sakes, or make do with what they have. Conscription is never an acceptable answer.
I spoke with my Uncle a few years back-- part of an AP class in history-- and he told me that they [meaning his unit] absolutely hated draftees. If they weren't working the system to try to find a way out, pissing themselves and complaining about being drafted, refusing to follow orders, or trying to get wounded so they could get shipped back home they were so piss poorly trained or dumb as a post that they actually endangered the unit. Said if he wouldn't have been the one to go to the stockades, he would have shot most of the draftees himself.
To support the draft our situation would have to warrant one. As of right now, we have a stellar volunteer army. There are certainly socio-economic arguments to be made with some validity, but not in a way that would validate government mandated military service at this time.
This is untrue. Consider this: in an all-volunteer military, is the force composed of a cross-section of society, or are those most likely to be successful underrepresented in its ranks? A recruiter who has supervised the administration of the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Batter) tends to find that the center of mass of the students interested in military service is lower than that of the population who took the exam - and that the highest-scoring students are the least likely to become soldiers. Since the start of the Iraq War, we have reduced the standards of admission to the US Army; is there any reason our standard's couldn't have remained higher if we had a conscripted force?
Note that I don't argue for a draft, only that a draft produces better soldiers on average if the size of the Army remains the same. The military ceases to be the domain of the underprivileged, and is escaped by no one.
The logic used by the Supreme Court in this matter is very reasonable. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 proscribed slavery in the Northwest territory with the following language:
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
The similarity of this language to that of the 13th Amendment is striking. The Amendment reads:
"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."
In 1799, the legislature of the Northwest Territory passed an act which required two days work on the territorial road system by every male citizen over 21. It used the following language:
That all male persons of the age of twenty-one years, and not exceeding fifty, who have resided thirty days in any township of any county within this territory, who are not a township charge, shall, over and above the rate of assessment hereinafter mentioned, be liable, yearly and every year, to do and perform two days' work on the public roads, under the direction of the supervisor within whose limits they shall be respectively residents.
This law was accepted by Congress and by the Executive, and was unchallenged by any citizen of the territory. The service it requires is clearly involuntary, but it would not reasonably be considered involuntary servitude.
Why? Because service and servitude are not equivalent terms, despite their common origin in the Latin servus (slave). "Service" comes to us from Old English, in which it described religious devotion (i.e. devotion so complete as to be a willing slave to the holy). Eventually, it came to refer to the work done in observance of that devotion, and today refers, in this sense, only to work done for something or someone other than oneself. It maintains, in formal usage, a sense of ultimate benevolence.
"Servitude," in contrast, has arrived almost intact from the Late Latin servitudo (a condition of slavery), passed into Middle English through Old French (servitude). The word's modern meaning is "the state of being a slave." "Slave" is formally defined as either "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them" or "a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation." I don't think it could be argued that a soldier is either of these.
You almost certainly have a point, though an argument relying on the 14th Amendment argument is invalid (because the 14th Amendment applies only to the states). An argument against sex discrimination by the Federal government must rely on the 5th Amendment. The relevant clause is this Amendment's "due process" statement, which reads:
"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
The Court decisions in Frontiero v. Richardson, Califano v. Jobst, and several other cases have applied this clause to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex - which is, by its nature, conducted without due process of deprivation at trial. In Frontiero, a case which prohibited sex discrimination in the disbursment of military dependent benefits, the Court wrote:
"The sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. As a result, statutory distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its individual members."
The case further established that due process concerns ajudicated under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment are subject to the "strict standard" test, not the "intermediate standard" of judicial review which applies to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. (This has not been overturned, but that may be a simple case of the distinction between the standards having been overlooked.)
Rii
Rear Admiral
Contradiction in terms.
One's right to life is not conditioned upon majority vote, sorry.
Hell no.
Similar threads
