Most people here seem to forget that the Framers didn't believe that compulsory military service was equal to that of slavery.
-- Thomas JeffersonOur battalions for the continental service were some time ago so far filled as rendered the recommendation of a draught from the militia hardly requisite, and the more so as in this country it ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people, even under the monarchical government, had learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions.
-- Daniel Webster"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."
-- Ronald Reagan"...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
I see a few different issues which are being amalgamated but need separate treatment:
1. Liberty and compulsion, by definition, are mutually exclusive.
2. I have no doubt in my mind that in the event of true national peril, Rambone would be right beside me so long as we were still physically able to stand with a rifle.
3. Conscripts generally aren't worth a f**k for anything in combat other than as cannon fodder used as a diversion from the effective troops. Self-motivation is a very powerful force which conscripts generally don't have.
4. Incorporating training compatible with usefulness in these roles into the educational curriculum would not be a bad thing--after all, knowledge of marksmanship, first aid, fire fighting, and perhaps some field craft are useful, and as previously noted, more useful than playing lacrosse.
I see no reason why the desired general results cannot be achieved under voluntary circumstances--not voluntary in the sense that paying income tax is supposedly voluntary.
And how in the hell would our government ever pay for a military 10+ times the size it is now? That many more taxpayers will be taken from those paying the bills. I'm sure our GDP will never notice it.
I read your post. I chalked you up as another person who doesn't care that soldiers are stepping into a law enforcement role.So, no one still wants to talk about how there were soldiers from a signal battalion? Please refer to my post on page 8. Thank you.
And how in the hell would our government ever pay for a military 10+ times the size it is now? That many more taxpayers will be taken from those paying the bills. I'm sure our GDP will never notice it.
Source?
United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33 - Wikisource, the free online librarySection 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.........
---------------------------------------Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
I am not following you. It would be a nightmare trying to pay for a massive expansion of the military. All I am arguing for is replacing soccer and football with something more useful for physical education and letting the military, fire, and police recruiters have a chance to give their spiel. Continue running all the above departments and military organizations exactly as they are with the exception of having potential recruits with a little fundamental training in place of useless sports that will potentially help them in the future regardless of whether or not they choose to join up with any of the above.
The Supreme Court within a decade said that it was constitutional for the government to detain "defective" human beings and forcibly sterilize them. It loves to defecate on the constitution and the principles of individual liberty. This case was no different.Findings of Arver, et al v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
The court started with a conclusion and attempts to justify the ends using whatever means necessary. The language for involuntary servitude simply does not exist in the constitution. The court is legislating from the bench in an bad way.(1) The constitutional language allowing Congress to raise armies permitted a compulsory draft, since Congress must have the power to procure men by any means for those armies.
That seems highly irrelevant when weighing constitutionality.(2) All nations as attributes of sovereignty have the right to conscript.
It's OK since the king does it? This is an embarrassing defense. I can't believe they wrote this in an official court opinion.(3) The English had compelled military service throughout their history.
And the colonies violated their citizens in a number of other ways. This is not a constitutional defense.(4) The colonies had also used conscription into the militia.
But they failed to include conscription in the new constitution.(5) The Continental Congress' lack of power to raise and control its own army was one of the reasons for the formation of the new Constitution.
Armies can be raised, organized, armed, disciplined, trained, and supported using voluntarily soldiers. Demanding service from unwilling citizens, who purportedly have inalienable rights, is a wholly separate power which was never stated in the constitution.Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power.......
- provide for the common Defence....
- To declare War, .....
- To raise and support Armies, ....
- 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;......
- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.......
Given that the militia is the pool from which we draw the military, the police and the fire fighters, it would make sense to have a "well regulated" population that is qualified to serve, if needed.
Thus would it not be smarter to have the military involved in how kids are raised? Or even military academies ran by the National Guard for kids from 12 to 18?
As it sits, most of the kids (ages 17 to 35) are so unfit for service that they could NEVER be enlisted. Too stupid, too fat, too drugged out, too many felons. Over 74% are that messed up. And only 5% can meet standards.
The Supreme Court within a decade said that it was constitutional for the government to detain "defective" human beings and forcibly sterilize them. It loves to defecate on the constitution and the principles of individual liberty. This case was no different.
The court started with a conclusion and attempts to justify the ends using whatever means necessary. The language for involuntary servitude simply does not exist in the constitution. The court is legislating from the bench in an bad way.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
That seems highly irrelevant when weighing constitutionality.
It's OK since the king does it? This is an embarrassing defense. I can't believe they wrote this in an official court opinion.
And the colonies violated their citizens in a number of other ways. This is not a constitutional defense.
But they failed to include conscription in the new constitution.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.......
Armies can be raised, organized, armed, disciplined, trained, and supported using voluntarily soldiers. Demanding service from unwilling citizens, who purportedly have inalienable rights, is a wholly separate power which was never stated in the constitution.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.......
You're presuming that conscription was defined as involuntary servitude, rather than that of a duty.The court in 1918 not only justified its position based on words that DO NOT EXIST, but it also ignored words that DO EXIST in the constitution."No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
IGNORED BY THE COURT.
"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."
DISMISSED IN ONE SENTENCE.
The proper course of action for the supporters of involuntary servitude would be to create an amendment to the constitution, explicitly granting this power to the Federal government, and repealing the 5th and 13th amendments. Make it official and quit using the back door.
I'm in agreement but I do have trouble with "Allowing" me to exercise my rights.
Where does it start and end?
Depends on what your values are. If your goal is to develop an obedient collectivist society; if the strength and fitness of a citizen is more important than his freedom; if you favor an all-powerful central government having complete sovereignty over the people; if inalienable rights are non-existent to you, then your ideas would appear to be reeeeal smart.Thus would it not be smarter to have the military involved in how kids are raised?
And what happens to parents who don't want their children indoctrinated with nationalistic dogma? Do they have daddy issues, if they don't want the government to play "daddy"?Or even military academies ran by the National Guard for kids from 12 to 18?
I was kind of wondering the same thing. The court has been trampling our rights for well over a century. The appeal to authority doesn't change my opinion, and I think they were wrong in their interpretation.Yep. Courts.....as well as the other branches of government make bad decisions all the time. Though occasionally, they make good ones too. So how is this relevant to the argument at hand?
Involuntary servitude is not a power granted to the Federal government. The language does not exist. Population counting methods notwithstanding.Wrong. Here is a clear reference to such:
Assure an existence? Prepare to have your mind blown. There are countries that exist without conscription and some without a military.The means to assure an existence is irrelevant?
The inspiration for law is one thing, using it sustain constitutionality is another.It was the law of the land under the previous English government. English law still has a great effect upon American law today.
I don't see any Federal powers to enslave in the 10th Amendment.Then look to 10A.
The definition of involuntary servitude looks identical to conscription. The two are indiscernible.Again:
You're presuming that conscription was defined as involuntary servitude, rather than that of a duty.
The framers had the foresight to codify the individual's right to never be deprived of liberty without due process. The checks and balances have all failed.You're probably right, except for the fact that the Framers never intended that everything be written down within the document. Some things just never occurred to them as an issue. Thus is the reason why there are checks and balances to hash things out.
I was kind of wondering the same thing. The court has been trampling our rights for well over a century. The appeal to authority doesn't change my opinion, and I think they were wrong in their interpretation.
Involuntary servitude is not a power granted to the Federal government. The language does not exist. Population counting methods notwithstanding.
Assure an existence? Prepare to have your mind blown. There are countries that exist without conscription and some without a military.
List of countries without armed forces
List of countries with and without mandatory military service
And yes - the argument is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the matter.
The inspiration for law is one thing, using it sustain constitutionality is another.
I don't see any Federal powers to enslave in the 10th Amendment.
The definition of involuntary servitude looks identical to conscription. The two are indiscernible.
Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 939-953.
It includes any "means of compulsion . . . sufficient in kind and degree to subject a person having the same general station in life as the alleged victims to believe they had no reasonable means of escape and no choice except to remain in the service of the employer." 487 U.S. 931
The framers had the foresight to codify the individual's right to never be deprived of liberty without due process. The checks and balances have all failed.
I can't find it now, but someone raised the question of what 'well regulated' means. At the time, it meant that it was in good working order. Likewise, the power to regulate interstate commerce was the authority to make it work right, not to control it. Usage of the words 'regulate' and 'regulation' have been greatly twisted in the last century or so.
This is why I so strongly oppose any .gov-sponsored redefinition of language. This came up in a particularly contentions thread regarding gay marriage. My position is that anyone should be able to join their worldly fortunes with whomever they choose, my personal belief that homosexuality is morally wrong notwithstanding. That said, I have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage' which has been a heterosexual phenomenon throughout history in every culture of which I am aware.
Some people thought I was insane for holding the danger of allowing the government to redefine language as my central concern and argument. This is yet another example (i.e., regulation). Another fine example is the attempt to nullify the Second Amendment by first incorrectly imposing the introductory clause on the operative clause and then redefining 'militia' which legally is every able-bodied adult citizen by insisting that this grants the National Guard the right to arms.
The bottom line is that the Constitution is meaningless if we let its domestic enemies redefine its contents into something it clearly was never intended to be.