Should Selective Service be abolished?

[Endangered Specie]

some other names of course: The Draft, Conscription, Compulsory Military Service.

This hopefully will be an interesting discussion

here some links:

http://www.sss.gov/WHHAP.HTM

http://www.sss.gov/ABOUT.HTM

http://www.sss.gov/Fast%20Facts%20Table.htm

[Dems Will Win]

1. Daniel Webster said this on the DRAFT in 1814: Against the Constitution!!

"Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not.

"The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

"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?"



http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/040609a.shtml

BUSH '04 =DRAFT '05

[Mr. Blonde]

2. The income tax

is also unconstitutional, but you don't see many calling for its abolition.
I voted no, and I'm of drafting age. Someday there may be a war that is worthy of being fought that also requires the draft.

[FeebMaster]

3. If there's a war worthy of being fought

you'll probably get plenty of willing volunteers to fight in it.

[Mr. Blonde]

6. Wasn't a draft

required for the Civil War? The World Wars? Were they unworthy?

I could actually be wrong about the draft on these, but I'm pretty sure there was. If not, obviously disregard.

[FeebMaster]

8. Maybe the people at the time didn't think they were worthy. (nt)

[Mr. Blonde]

12. Sometimes

history makes a picture clearer than it does up close when it is present time. Are you going to tell me we would be better off not fighting those wars?

[Endangered Specie]

14. Well...

WWII would have never happened without WWI, and that was a complete waste.

[FeebMaster]

16. What he said,

plus the civil war should have been avoided.

[Mr. Blonde]

18. But how?

allow the states to secede? How many wars would that lead to later over disputes when both countries try to expand westward?

Yes, WWII could have been avoided if the aftermath of WWI had been treated better, but it wasn't worth it. Does that mean that we shouldn't have fought the war with the circumstances that were presented?

[FeebMaster]

21. Allowing them to secede would have been one option.

Who knows what would have happened after that. The government could have bought out all the slave owners which probably would have been cheaper than the war ended up being.

"Yes, WWII could have been avoided if the aftermath of WWI had been treated better, but it wasn't worth it. Does that mean that we shouldn't have fought the war with the circumstances that were presented?"

I don't know what you mean by "but it wasn't worth it." The US should never have gotten involved in WW1. Even with the circumstances as they were presented, the US should have avoided getting involved in WW2.

[Mr. Blonde]

24. How would

land disputes between the confederacy and the union be settled? Something tells me not amicably. Not to mention slavery was not the core issue for secession. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I am not actually aware of what I meant to say there :) Guess I was thinking faster than I was typing. Maybe typing and not thinking? Who knows.

When would we deal with Hitler? Without our aid he certainly would have conquered Europe and Asia. Then we would be the only ones left.

[Endangered Specie]

26. Umm, I would like to debate that...

"Without our aid he certainly would have conquered Europe and Asia. Then we would be the only ones left."

Hitler, because of his own mistakes, would not have conquered the USSR (and hence, Asia), as a matter of fact, trying to do so was what lost him the war in the first place.

(see my post below)

edit: and with regard to WWII and the draft, the problem wasnt people begging to be deferred, it was more like people begging to be ALLOWED to fight.

[Mr. Blonde]

27. But don't forget

we were giving aid to the Soviets. They conquered him with our help. And don't forget we are talking about him attacking with us involved in the war. The picture changes dramatically if we stay out.

[Endangered Specie]

29. I agree with that, but...

Theres a difference between shipping war equipment and shipping men. Our industral contribution (indirect participation) was essential, but in terms of our direct military participation, I doubt the outcome of the war hinged on that.

[Mr. Blonde]

30. So

even after Pearl Harbor we should have still stayed out of the war? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with that in any way.

And I'm still not sure that the allies could have won without troops from here. Things still weren't looking good when we were just providing goods.

[Endangered Specie]

34. ...

Im not trying to debate whether or not we should have fought in WWII, I was debating the overall contributions we made (far too often, the Russians dont get the credit they deserve for winning WWII, if we are going to erect a monument recgonizing our effort in WWII, we ought to consider monuments for our foreign allies too).

I tend to think that whether a war is "worth fighting" should be decided by the people, and only those people should be considered when a draft is needed.

[Mr. Blonde]

36. We were

mortal ass enemies with the Russians for 40 years following the war. Things like that tend to cloud your judgement of people. They did do a lot, but they would not of been capable of doing those things without our aid. Both in goods and people. Hitler became overextended going into Russia. Who's to say the same wouldn't have happened to Russia coming out? Since remember without us they would have had very little help. The Germans would have been firmly entrenched in the conquered countries surrounding Russia, and with very little to occupy their time beside the Russians.

[Endangered Specie]

41. Yes

the russians probably could not have beaten the Nazis in the East without our industrial aid (I think Ive said that already). But, by the time June 1944 rolled around, the Germans were really already beaten, by then it was only a matter of time. Probably, our air raids were more beneficial to chrushing Hitler's war effort (although, some of those were less than civil) than the gound war... Although, had the Russians been left to conquer the west after they got to Berlin, the USSR would have been ALOT bigger.

ANyhow, all this is hypothetical, and its really impossible to answer the what if's questions, but they sure are interesting to think about and play out in the mind.

[FeebMaster]

31. I don't know how things would have turned out

between the Confederacy and the Union maybe they could have patched things up later. Maybe secession could have been avoided in the first place. I don't care to argue about slavery or whether or not it led to the Civil War, I was just tossing out ideas on how maybe the war could have been avoided.

As for Hitler, assuming WW1 turned out like it ended up turning out, he might have conquered Europe and maybe even Asia, but there was no way he could conquer the US. I think it more likely that there would have eventually been a war between Japan and Germany than between Germany and the US. Even if eventually there ended up being a war between the US and Germany, I don't think Germany could have pulled off a victory. It's not easy invading a country across that much ocean. The only reason the US pulled it off was because it launched its invasion from England.

Sure it would have sucked for Europe and Asia being conquered by Germany and Japan, but lets face it, things didn't turn out so well for them anyway between the Soviets and the Chinese Communists.

[Mr. Blonde]

33. Who's to say

that Hitler wouldn't have found himself a good base to attack the US first? Remember the supreme ruler of Europe and Asia and Africa has a lot of leeway in what he can do.

Do you really think it would have been best to wait on him to try and attack the continental US before getting involved in the war?

[FeebMaster]

38. Even assuming he had a good base to attack from

like maybe he conquered a Caribbean island first, he'd still have a few things working against him.

First of all, Europe and Asia are huge and would require a massive number of men to keep under control. Could he have marshaled a large enough force to attack the US?

Second, and probably even more importantly, the US is a big country with all kinds of terrain and a lot of people with a lot of guns. Hell, back then you could buy guns mail order and the NFA was certainly not enforced to the level it is today.

Third, and probably most importantly, Germany had no aircraft carriers. I guess they could have built some, but the US certainly had a head start on aircraft carriers not to mention thousands of miles of coast line to launch planes from.

Plus, if he were sending hundreds of thousands of men to conquer some island in the Caribbean, that would probably be a good time to do something about it since it would be pretty obvious where those troops would be going. Sink the troop transports from the air. Never give them a chance to get their men into a position to invade.

[Mr. Blonde]

39. Remember the day that will live in infamy

we didn't know then.

[FeebMaster]

40. Questionable.

And a tiny island annexed by the US out in the pacific isn't the mainland US. It seems to me, if you think a guy building an empire might want to invade you next, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on troop movements and ships in the vicinity of your shores.

[Mr. Blonde]

42. Well

aren't we talking about a tiny island out in the atlantic not annexed to the US first? At what point do we decide to step in. I guess we could at that point as part of the Monroe Doctrine.

[FeebMaster]

44. I thought you meant

we wouldn't see the Germans preparing to invade.

As for the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, well I guess we'll have to get even more hypothetical on that one. If the US had stayed out of Japan's way in the Pacific, Japan probably wouldn't have felt the need to attack the US. If you want to go back even further, the US probably should have left all those islands out in the Pacific well enough alone.

[Endangered Specie]

25. WWII was pretty much won by the Russians

Our indusrial might was very critical, if not essential to the allied war effort. During WWII, it was a pretty much accepted amongst Churchill, Stalin, and FDR that The USSR would do the vast majority of the fighting and dying (and hence, the winning of the war)(in exchange for alot of post-war land).

What Im saying is, the Axis would probably have lost WWII whether or not we actually sent guys to fight.

[Endangered Specie]

4. Who decides what wars are worthy?

you? the current government (heaven forbid)?

I suspect that its whoever starts the war decides that its worthy.

I would be happy with a draft that was much more leniant with CO statuses, specifically, if your against that particular war (yes or no, no further questions asked), your deferred.

[FeebMaster]

9. Realistically, I suppose

the current government gets to decide that the war is worthy, since they are the ones who are going to draft you and throw you in prison or kill you if you refuse to serve.

[Endangered Specie]

10. "In the Red Army, it takes more courage to retreat...

than to advance" ~ Stalin

NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS!

[FeebMaster]

11. That pretty much sums it up. (nt)

[Art_from_Ark]

13. The income tax is constitutional

under provisions of the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[Mr. Blonde]

15. Yes, and

that contradicts other parts of the constitution. If you believe Irwin Schiff the IRS operates on a big bluff. If you call them on it, they can't do anything to you.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. So where are the provisions that specifically prohibit an income tax?

By the way, I wouldn't want to play games with the IRS. Your contention about the "unconstitutionality" of the tax won't get you anywhere in a court of law. Just ask Al Capone.

[Mr. Blonde]

20. As I said

if you believe Irwin Schiff, who (if you pay him of course) will send you all of the material you need to avoid the income tax. Capone came along too early.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

As it is not uniform one would think it can't be constituitional right? I'm not entirely sold on it, but it is something I have read about, and seems like a good way to start a "heated" discussion when I'm bored. Their are others but I can't remember exactly what all Mr. Schiff's evidence was of the illegality of the income tax.

It does seem to me that it is strange that of all the amendments, it is the only one left that takes something away from the people. Previously there were two and we know what happened to the other one.

[PepSky]

52. Wrong again

It is established law that any amendments supersede any previous amendments (or the original constitution). Therefore there are no contradictions - the original contradictory sections are null and void.

[cheezus]

50. paying income tax is voluntary

you just have to earn no income.

if there is a war worthy of being fought, we'll have no trouble finding people to fight it.

[PepSky]

Uhhh wrong

The SCOTUS struck down income tax as unconstitutional. Then the constitution was amended to make it constitutional. Ever hear of amendment XVI?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

Now tell me - how exactly is income tax unconstitutional? You've just lost all credibility.

[PepSky]

51. Uhhh wrong

The SCOTUS struck down income tax as unconstitutional. Then the constitution was amended to make it constitutional. Ever hear of amendment XVI?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

Now tell me - how exactly is income tax unconstitutional? You've just lost all credibility.

[union_maid]

5. Daniel Webster said it well

Seems to me that when we don't send people off to idiotic, badly planned and conceived wars we manage to have enough people in the military. They had the draft during WWII but I doubt they really needed it. My grandfather was on the draft board in his town. The problems they had were more with people being begging to be accepted than with trying to get out of it. Many women served and none of them had to. Just treat the military well and don't abuse them with bad missions and there'll be enough people to fill the ranks.

[Dems Will Win]

35. That's right! And we don't need the draft now

Unless of course you want to invade 4 or 5 more countries by 2006 like PNAC and the Bushies do.

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05

[zydeco]

7. Yes it should be totally abolished.

I am a vet and not of draft age but I have a 13 year old grandson, a 13 and 16 year old daughter who are coming of age. We have seen what can happen when a war mongering greedy group of misfits control and manipulate to have a war for profit. Their sons daughters and family will always have some way to avoid the draft just like the weasel chimp did. No draft, No wars for profit. No *.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Well said

A draft will only affect the least connected in society. And as long as we're talking unconstitutionality here, it completely goes against the "involuntary servitude" clause in the 13th Amendment:

"Section 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."

[Massacure]

22. if you tried to dodge the draft, would this excuse hold up in court?

[Art_from_Ark]

28. It seems like the draft was challenged in 1918

from the April 26, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0426/p09s02-coop.html


Calls for military draft promote illusion of equality
By David Greenberg

NEW YORK - No idea excites self-styled reformers, whether liberal or conservative, more than calls to revive the military draft. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq last year, Rep. Charles Rangel (D) of New York lobbied for conscription. Last week, it was Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska. Both contend that a draft would spread the burden of sacrifice more justly than our all-volunteer armed forces and make jaded Americans own up to the brutal toll war exacts.

Those seduced by Senator Hagel's call should take note of how deep opposition to the draft has been throughout US history. The idea certainly appeals to Americans' traditional concern for equal treatment. But it often romanticizes the extent to which conscription has been equitable in practice.

Aversion to the draft dates to the Revolutionary War. The Minute Men needed no official orders to rebel against British rule. But the reliance on volunteers sometimes crippled the Continental Army, as in the winter of 1776, when Tom Paine disparaged the "summer soldier and the sunshine patriot."

But although Gen. George Washington wanted national conscription, the Continental Congress denied his request. The select states that did draft soldiers let well-born conscripts hire replacements, who were usually poor and jobless. Military service hardly forged the bond that today's draft advocates imagine.

A decade later, the Constitution's framers broke with European practice and omitted from the founding document any reference to conscription - conferring on Congress alone the power to "raise and support armies." A draft would "stretch the strings of government too violently," argued Virginia's delegate Edmund Randolph. Even when war came, in 1812, Congress refused to allow what Rep. Daniel Webster of New Hampshire warned would amount to "Napoleonic despotism," despite President James Madison's pleas for a draft.

The Civil War did see limited use of the draft by the Union following a drop in enlistment. But again, the policy was hardly fair. Because draftees could escape service for $300, then a hefty sum, critics charged that the conflict had become "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight." Ferocious antidraft riots in New York City killed more than 100 people in July 1863.

Although the World War I draft law prohibited hiring substitutes, the inherent coerciveness of the policy still sparked enormous dissent. An estimated 3 million young men refused to register, and of those called up, 12 percent either didn't report or deserted. Civil libertarians even went to court to argue that the draft violated the 13th Amendment ban on involuntary servitude, though they lost before the Supreme Court.

[Dems Will Win]

37. Great Post, Art

That's why the draft is unfair and unequal. Today there is a poverty draft. We need good jobs and a strong volunteer army.

Bush is shipping both overseas.

[PepSky]

53. It would not be an "excuse"

it would be a legal argument.

And no - the SCOTUS has already ruled the amendment does not apply to the draft. You would have a supreme court precedent to fight. While the SCOTUS can change it's rulings it's not likely yet.

[Hubert Flottz]

23. War should be abolished!

Same as greed should!

[TahitiNut]

32. Where's "Yes/No - I was a draftee" ???

Some of us were actually drafted. (Unlike some who only read about it in the history books.) Isn't that opinion demographic of any interest? Strange. :shrug:

And what about women? As the draft laws are, women aren't eligible. Isn't ther an interest in how the Male-Female opinion differs? Strange. :eyes:

[Endangered Specie]

43. Oops

I knew I forgot something. sorry. I can't edit it :(.

[mandyky]

45. I think national service should

be for 4 years whether peace corps or military. If someone gets an educational deferment, they can serve aftter they finish college.
Even women/mothers could perform community services at home.

I served in the US Army 77-80 & 83-84, and I had children my last stint - my mom kept my kids. We coould do so much if ALL young people were made to serve 4 years, before or after college.

[Endangered Specie]

46. Umm...

4 years seems like alot... and it would really hurt people coming out of college to have to wait 4 years to go back and find a job.

[TahitiNut]

47. I'd go for 18-48 months of Uniform National Service

The length of service should be varied based on the demands of the various service options and nature of service: from 18 months including 12 in a combat zone to maybe 48 months in the public health service or national park service. Other options might include the Peace Corps, VISTA, teacher's assistants, and various UN service agencies. (I think all options should include 3 months of military basic training.) Every person between the ages of 18(21?) and 35 should be required to do this, no matter what their gender, sexual orientation, eyesight, hearing, etc.

FWIW, the currently specious notion of "job training" could certainly apply far more expansively with such an option, if only for a backup career option.

[flaminbats]

48. interesting poll I found in my old political science book...

American Social Attitudes 1947-1978

Favor spending more on national defense..whites 52% blacks 29%

Favor registration of young men for draft...whites 85% blacks 68%


I would like to see a poll today measuring public support of..the registration of young men or women for the draft.

[Endangered Specie]

49. kick

:kick: