Selective Service... is it constitutional???

[jsgolfman]

Ah, wonderful, a quote by a utilitarian, closet statist.

 

[kevman65]

To answer the title of the thread, yes per the Supreme Court of the United States.

All the other opinions in the thread don't answer the question.

 

[Jay]

Folks who aren't willing to serve, and want others to provide for their freedoms, need to remember that Canada is just a few clicks north. Saddle up and get out.

 

[rambone]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)​

I don't think its a valid conclusion to say that someone against forced military conscription would never fight for anything, or that he would never join the military voluntarily himself. To oppose conscription is to oppose fascism.

To answer the title of the thread, yes per the Supreme Court of the United States.

All the other opinions in the thread don't answer the question.

And the opinions of the Supreme Court don't address the Constitution.

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.
​

 

[bkflyer]

I think it's a VERY valid conclusion. You always hear "When the US is attacked I'll be the first to sign up!" Hogwash.

 

[rambone]

I think it's a VERY valid conclusion. You always hear "When the US is attacked I'll be the first to sign up!" Hogwash.

Ok broseph, the only way to be patriotic is to force other people to serve the government. Wave those flags or go to jail. Go USA.

 

[CarmelHP]

And the opinions of the Supreme Court don't address the Constitution.

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.
​

They've addressed that specifically. In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude" as contemplated by the 13th Amendment.

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

Congress' power to raise armies is considered absolute, and the "involuntary servitude" provision of the 13th Amendment is not meant to curtail it, but to prevent chattel slavery.

 

[rambone]

They've addressed that specifically. In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude" as contemplated by the 13th Amendment.

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

Was this the same Supreme Court that upheld the Sedition Act of 1918 and allowed Woodrow Wilson to round up 100,000 pacifists and dissenters and put them in concentration camps? For using harsh language about the government??

Those progressive sellouts did their part in leading the republic down the road to serfdom. Their creative definition of 'involuntary servitude' notwithstanding.

Internment Camp - Hot Springs, North Carolina 1917-1918[SIZE=+2]

[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+2]

[/SIZE]
​

Congress' power to raise armies is considered absolute, and the "involuntary servitude" provision of the 13th Amendment is not meant to curtail it, but to prevent chattel slavery.

Further proof that the civil war was not about ending slavery. They just wanted the State to have a monopoly on enslaving people.

 

[CarmelHP]

Was this the same Supreme Court that upheld the Sedition Act of 1918 and allowed Woodrow Wilson to round up 100,000 pacifists and dissenters and put them in concentration camps? For using harsh language about the government??

So, which is your argument: they didn't address it, or it was a bad Supreme Court? Saying it is a bad Supreme Court does not address their reasoning and is not the initial complaint you made.

 

[rambone]

So, which is your argument: they didn't address it, or it was a bad Supreme Court? Saying it is a bad Supreme Court does not address their reasoning and is not the initial complaint you made.

Both. They are deriving their opinion off of what they want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says. Involuntary servitude is expressly prohibited, except as punishment for a crime. There is no coherent way to explain how conscription can coexist with the 13th Amendment, so they produced this muddled piece of garbage.

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

 

[Prometheus]

Conscription = Slavery. I really don't see how someone can say otherwise...

I couldn't agree more.

If the cause is worthy and just, there will be no shortage of Patriots to defend the country.

 

[CarmelHP]

Both. They are deriving their opinion off of what they want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says. Involuntary servitude is expressly prohibited, except as punishment for a crime. There is no coherent way to explain how conscription can coexist with the 13th Amendment, so they produced this muddled piece of garbage.

So, your argument is that the same Congress that proposed the 13th Amendment and which was fighting a war while making unprecedented use of conscription was trying to make the prosecution of that war impossible? That seems to be unlikely.

 

[mrjarrell]

On reading the decision that Carmel posted it looks like conscription would be Constitutional if congress were to declare a war. Would it still be Constitutional if they did not?
....

as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people

.... some aspiring lawyer, in the future, might well be able to make a case that a draft is only Constitutional with a declaration of war by congress. And not in times where the idiot in chief decides to just send troops abroad.

 

[rambone]

So, your argument is that the same Congress that proposed the 13th Amendment and which was fighting a war while making unprecedented use of conscription was trying to make the prosecution of that war impossible? That seems to be unlikely.

Quite the paradox. Just like enslaving people to free slaves. Fortunately they made the language clear enough that we don't have to read their 150 year old minds.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)​

We're not talking about if there were an actual threat to our nation's well being...we're discussing the undeclared wars of the last half century. In such a misapplied context, your drive-by quote would indicate that it would be better for me to enslave one neighbor & force him to burn another neighbor's house down for yelling at his wife than to offer him gentle guidance in how a man should treat his wife (hypothetical situation).

 

[CarmelHP]

Quite the paradox. Just like enslaving people to free slaves. Fortunately they made the language clear enough that we don't have to read their 150 year old minds.

Really? So, you agree, for instance, that the 2nd Amendment's "well-regulated" clause should be read as modern usage rather than the original understanding? That's the nail the anti's hang a power to regulate guns away. The Court believed that servitude was not the same as service. It's a somewhat plausible argument, given the circumstances, your wish it were not does not provide a convincing refutation. Do you know you of any documents or writings that suggest that the purpose of the Amendment was anything other than to outlaw chattel slavery?

 

[CarmelHP]

On reading the decision that Carmel posted it looks like conscription would be Constitutional if congress were to declare a war. Would it still be Constitutional if they did not?
........ some aspiring lawyer, in the future, might well be able to make a case that a draft is only Constitutional with a declaration of war by congress. And not in times where the idiot in chief decides to just send troops abroad.

Later cases addressed that also, during the Vietnam draft. This ground has been hoed over a whole lot by the courts.

 

[rambone]

Really? So, you agree, for instance, that the 2nd Amendment's "well-regulated" clause should be read as modern usage rather than the original understanding? That's the nail the anti's hang a power to regulate guns away.

The trouble with guessing the collective intent of America's founding fathers is that people like to assign to them their own beliefs.

The anti's tend to inject their own speculations as to the founders intentions in an effort to convince people to deny the words that they read before their very eyes: "Shall not be infringed." The 2nd is emphatically clear to me. As is the succinct text of the 13th amendment.

Maybe we should start a discussion on standing armies if we are to get hung up on intentions outside what is written in the constitution.

The Court believed that servitude was not the same as service. It's a somewhat plausible argument, given the circumstances, your wish it were not does not provide a convincing refutation.

Perhaps Bill Clinton used this as his inspiration for his linguistic acrobatics over the word 'is.' To the rest of us it appears rather desperate and silly. President, Justice, or otherwise.

Do you know you of any documents or writings that suggest that the purpose of the Amendment was anything other than to outlaw chattel slavery?

I understand that many of the founding fathers opposed slavery. Yet in an effort to form the United States and preserve the union, they did not expressly ban slavery [or conscription] in the original constitution. However, they made it explicitly clear the principles in which this nation was supposed to be based on: inalienable rights of the individual. Citizens were guaranteed that they would not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The framers didn't have to expressly ban slavery/conscription so long as they included such definitive language about our inalienable rights.

If the original constitution didn't make it clear enough that individuals were not owned by the state, the outcome of the civil war should have cleared up the confusion. The 13th amendment is very concise and to the point. It stands to reason that if an exception was to be understood, it would have been included it in the text of the amendment, as was made for exempting punishment of a crime. As you mentioned, the 38th U.S. Congress was well aware of the practice of conscription by the tyrant leader Lincoln (that is, the Congressmen whom were not arrested for dissent against Lincoln's war on the American people). Would they really be so forgetful and oblivious as to think that this amendment would not be easily interpreted as to prohibit involuntary servitude to the State?

Perhaps they intended to abolish chattel slavery and military slavery all in one amendment? It was adopted after Lincoln was dead and his reign of terror was over, and their colleagues were released from the sedition camps. Congress saw the results of forcing Americans to slaughter their fellow Americans. Who's to say I'm wrong? Well we don't have to guess. We just need to read the 13th amendment, and re-read the 5th.

Criminal punishment is the only exception provided in the text of the 13th. Period. The authors and signers of the 13th messed up if they actually expected involuntary military servitude to remain constitutional after that amendment passed. A fortunate turn of events for liberty-supporters.

 

[rambone]

When did conservatives forget their roots??

"[Conscription] 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."
- Ronald Reagan, Human Events, 1979

"There should no longer be any confusion about the liberal, radical and conservative positions on the draft. Liberals favor it, but either want to make it random in its selection or extend it to social as well as military service. Radicals want to end it or turn it to social service. They are not against compulsion. They are just against the fact, it seems to me, that the compulsion in this case is being used as part of an effort against their current heroes, the Viet Cong. Conservatives want to end the draft–period. They do not want to extend it to any other form of service... Between the liberal and conservative positions lies the world of difference that marks the two philosophies. The liberal position is based solidly upon the notion that every form of compulsion and every sacrifice of the individual may be justified in the name of "society." The conservative position is based solidly upon the notion that man’s most fundamental right and responsibility is to live his own life."
- Barry Goldwater, New Guard, May 1967 issue

"The case for abolishing conscription and recruiting our armed forces by voluntary methods seems to me overwhelming. One of the greatest advances in human freedom was the commutation of taxes in kind to taxes in money. We have reverted to a barbarous custom. It is past time that we regain our heritage."
- Milton Friedman, Why Not a Volunteer Army?, 1967

"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."
- Daniel Webster, during the War of 1812

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to conscript citizens. The power to raise armies is not a power to force people into the armies. Lesser forms of the draft, such as compulsory 'national service' are based on the same unacceptable premise. Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy. In a free society, their lives are not the plaything of government."
- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. 56


Against Military Conscription | Ron Paul

A Draft Violates Individual Liberty | Ron Paul

The most important reason to oppose a draft is that it violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude. - Ron Paul