There has been a lot of talk about a military draft lately, for a lot of reasons. Many observers and analysts are saying that if Bush is reelected and he continues the foreign policy path he has started, there is going to have to be a draft. He has repeatedly denied that, and the only movement in Congress to reinstate the draft has come from Democrat Charles Rangel, who says he did so to prompt a public debate on shared sacrifice. But the fact still remains that the American military is drastically overstretched at this point, with simultaneous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the normal deployments around the world. In both of those nations we have significant troops on the ground, but not nearly enough to secure them. Imagine what would happen if Bush decided that we needed to invade Iran, for example, which seems to be moving forward with plans to enrich uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons, or if talks break down with North Korea, who is undoubtedly trying to obtain nuclear weapons to go along with the long range ballistic missiles and the nearly 2 million man army they have.
In the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, the US reduced the number of active duty military personnel dramatically. Without the threat of the cold war, it seemed pointless to maintain such a high readiness for war and the talk on both sides of the political aisle was of the "peace dividend" that could be accrued from standing down a bit. But with the present administration's dramatic ramping up of our military posture, they've found themselves scrambling to cover the battlefield requirements. Thus, the "backdoor draft" that Kerry has been talking about, where they extend tours of duty and call up some members of the Individual Ready Reserve, retired military people who are technically able to be recalled, but have in most cases not been in the military for years. Reports are that about 1/3 of the IRR that have been recalled have not shown up for duty as ordered.
Another big reason why the draft has been in the news is the proposed monument in a Canadian town to those Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war. This predictably sent the right wing into hysterics and the resulting pressure led the mayor of that town to withdraw the proposal and cancel the project so as to avoid losing business. And that's what brings me to the real issue, for me, which is the prevailing American attitude toward the draft. Most Americans, the polls show, disagree with having a draft. At the same time, however, they go fairly ballistic over the notion of anyone refusing to be drafted once one is in place.
My position on this subject is quite clear - a military draft is absolutely contrary to the ideals upon which this nation was founded and should be forever off the political agenda. The premise behind the draft is that individuals belong to the state - that the state has the authority, in any circumstances of its choosing, to order anyone they choose within the country to kill or die in pursuit of any goal it deems important enough to warrant that action. But individuals do not belong to the state in our system of government, the state exists solely to secure the rights of individuals.
The Vietnam War should have ended the draft debate forever. Though it should not have been necessary to do so, Vietnam demonstrated once and for all that our government - any government - cannot be trusted with that authority. They revived the draft and sent some 58,000 Americans to their death, and killed a couple million in Indochina as well, in pursuit of a stupid and unwinnable war in which the US had no interest at all, much less one vital to our security. They won Congressional support for that war through a faked attack in the Gulf of Tonkin and continued, through two administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, to lie and defraud the American public while pursuing a war that they knew they could not win.
When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press, the public learned that the Pentagon's own internal studies had concluded by 1967 at the latest that there was no strategic goal that could be achieved by the continuation of the war in Vietnam, yet the war continued for another 8 years. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed. In my opinion, the men who perpetrated that fraud on the country, from LBJ and McNamara to Kissinger and Nixon, should have been imprisoned for their crimes. Yet who was it who went to jail in droves or were forced to leave the country to avoid it? Those who refused to act as slaves for the state.
Yes, there should be a monument to those who fled the draft. Those men knew what all the idiotic uber-patriots on the right have forgotten, that the government belongs to them, not the other way around, and that to refuse to kill or die for an unjust and unjustified war is the essence of patriotism, not its negation. Those men understood that their duty is not to kill whoever, wherever and whenever their government orders them to, but to hold our government to the highest standard of judgement when they presume to give such orders to anyone.
What is astonishing to me is that most prominent conservatives are very much against the draft and believe it is illegal and immoral, yet they and their followers still score political points by going after "draft dodgers". Ronald Reagan said, "A draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending." Yet that didn't stop him from making a big campaign issue out of Jimmy Carter's pardon of those who went to Canada to avoid the draft. Well if the draft destroys the very values our society seeks to defend, then shouldn't those who refuse such an unjust law be applauded rather than demonized? Apparently not, when there are political points to score with the masses.
John Whitehead, a prominent religious right figure and founder of the Rutherford Institute, says, "reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional." Yet we have such vicious rhetoric thrown at those who stand up in protest of this immoral and unconstitutional institution. Where is the consistency?
If the draft should be reinstated again, by either party or by both, I will not only refuse to serve (though I'm likely too old to be conscripted anyway), I will help others to avoid it and I will stand up to anyone who wants to force it upon our young men and women. I will say what Daniel Webster said when opposing a military draft during the War of 1812:
"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."
- Log in to post comments
"...the only movement in Congress to reinstate the draft has come from Democrat Charles Rangel, who says he did so to prompt a public debate on shared sacrifice."
Uh, that's not true.
"H.R. 3598, The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, introduced by Republicans Smith of Michigan and Weldon of Pennsylvania on December 28, 2001 and later referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Rep Roscoe Bartlett (R) is a co-sponsor."
"The Title of the bill states it is "To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year.""
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001336.html#001336
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008107.html#008107
Ed,
I agree whole-heartedly about the draft issue. It certainly is a disturbing prospect. I am certainly young enough to be drafted. If a draft was reinstated, I don't know whether I would go to Canada (chances are that would be very difficult to pull off this time around)or whether I would make a public display of defiance like those brave individuals that publicly burned their draft cards during Vietnam,
I am still highly skeptical about the possibility of a draft passing, given public opinion. Such a move, it seems, would be political suicide. However, if it comes down to it- say, we have to engage Iran militarily or some such other crisis, do you think the public would go for it? Do you think they would support a draft over the prospect of a full withdrawal from Iraq? That's what I wonder. In light of the patriot act, people seem very willing to abandon personal freedom if they think they are in danger. If the American public thinks an attack from North Korea is inevitable, they may reverse positions on a draft very quickly.
The United States stopped drafting young men into the military in 1973 and created an all-volunteer military. But the nation drafted large numbers of Americans into the service in 1917-18 and from 1940-73.
Conflict Inductions
World War I 2,810,296
World War II 10,110,104
Korean War 1,529,539
Vietnam War 1,857,304
Source: Selective Service System
Good Evening
In light of the drafts that have occurred in the past, I was wondering how past elected officials and the courts interpreted this section of the Constitution of the US
Section 8
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
I was drafted in 1966. Yes Ed, there really are people that old who read blogs. There is nothing heroic about being a scared, idiot 19 year-old kid simply doing what you're told. In a way, I was lucky, because there was little talk of running to Canada in rural 1966. My dad had served in the Pacific during WWII and it was simply my turn to use a gun. It was only after I got back that the major anti-war protests started; at least it seemed that way to me. I often wonder what I would have done had I been drafted in 68 or later. In my case I think it would have taken more guts to run than to serve.
After 911 there was all this talk about "a new kind of war". Seems to me we haven't learned how to fight that war yet. For all the words, President Bush couldn't figure it out and tried to find us a conflict we could win in the "old-fashioned" way. That hasn't worked since WWII. In spite of ourselves, we're too civilized (or at least too politically correct) to fight like that today. We talk about "innocent" Iraqis. When are we going to learn that you really can't seperate a government from it's people when you're bombing them. If you really feel a population of a country is "innocent", you have to find ways of dealing with that country other than shooting at it. In Iraq we've tried to mix an "old" war with new sensibilities. The draft is a way of dealing with that old kind of war. We need new approaches.
"...I don't know whether I would go to Canada (chances are that would be very difficult to pull off this time around)..."
More difficult than you realize. An agreement was reached between Canada and the U.S. very recently that would prevent it.
"In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to contain would-be draft dodgers. The declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country."
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/24.html
Official Document:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021206-1.html
Bring back press gangs!
Ed, if you should ever be drafted I would not hesitate to leave this country and encourage others to do the same. I feel the same about our children if someday they were to be drafted.
I pray our government never reopens the draft.
I feel our military should be paid well and they should have everything they require to help them better serve.
As long as there are volunteers who are willing to join I will be suportive of them. They go willingly.
Those men knew what all the idiotic uber-patriots on the right have forgotten, that the government belongs to them, not the other way around, and that to refuse to kill or die for an unjust and unjustified war is the essence of patriotism, not its negation. Those men understood that their duty is not to kill whoever, wherever and whenever their government orders them to, but to hold our government to the highest standard of judgement when they presume to give such orders to anyone.
With all due respect, Ed, this is bullshit and I think you know it. I would be extremely surprised if even one percent of the draft-dodgers who fled to Canada really had any notion in mind of being Noble Protesters Against The War. They were just kids who didn't want to join up because they were afraid of getting shot at. Which is a perfectly understandable reaction, mind you. But it is not noble or admirable by any stretch of the imagination.
As for the "paradox" between opposition to the draft in principle and contempt for draft-dodgers who ran away rather than serve -- it's only in your mind. It disappears when you understand that one may be opposed to a law in principle yet still respect it _as_ the law. When too many people lose respect for the law and the social contract that underlies it, society starts to break down. If you doubt this, look at how the current election campaign is becoming more brutal and nasty than any this country has seen in a hundred years. For four years one faction withn this country has spent every waking minute trying to break society's trust in our election laws. Well, they've succeeded to such an extent that protesters within eyesight of the candidates are considered a security risk, while campaign signs and offices are considered legitimate targets for assault, arson, and assorted other kinds of violent "protest." What happened to respect for the other side's right of free speech? It's gone. Left town years ago. And that decay in respect started when? Why, the late 60s, with that "we think the law is wrong so we don't have to obey it" attitude of the draft dodgers and their pals. What's going on today reminds me more of the McKinley-Bryan campaign of 1900, when violence was rife and factory owners outright told their workers that if Bryan won the election the factory would close down the next day.
Those who act to oppose an unjust law by accepted means -- civil disobedience, civil activism, lawsuit -- yes, they deserve our respect. But not those who betray the society they belong to by simply running away. Or to put it in simpler terms: fighting the draft (by nonviolent, legal means) is worthy of respect. Fleeing it is not.
jwoolf wrote:
You must be a Yankee, then, if you've never heard of Theodore Bilbo, two-time governor of Mississip'.
In my opinion, the men who perpetrated that fraud on the country, from LBJ and McNamara to Kissinger and Nixon, should have been imprisoned for their crimes.
Don't forget Eisenhower. He was the one who got the US involved in Vietnam, after the French defeat. It was Eisenhower's administration that screwed the country.
With all due respect, Ed, this is bullshit and I think you know it. I would be extremely surprised if even one percent of the draft-dodgers who fled to Canada really had any notion in mind of being Noble Protesters Against The War. They were just kids who didn't want to join up because they were afraid of getting shot at. Which is a perfectly understandable reaction, mind you. But it is not noble or admirable by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't doubt that some of the people who dodged the draft did so solely because they wanted to avoid combat and regardless of the other reasons. I don't have a clue what the percentages were and neither do you. But I would bet that a large percentage of them at least understood this to the level of believing that the Vietnam War was unjust and unjustified. A large portion of them, I imagine, would have been more willing to be shot at if the truth was that the Vietnam war was vital to our security, or had some noble purpose, but it didn't. And that is the only thing that really matters. If the government is telling you that you must kill or die without justification, then no one has any obligation to follow those orders.
The real people you should be calling cowards, in my view, are those people who supported the war and thought it was justified and good, yet found a way not to serve. Those are cowards who will not fight even for what they believe in. It takes far more courage to leave behind the country you love and your family and risk being a social outcast, at best, to avoid a war you think is wrong than to support the war but send someone else to fight it instead.
As for the "paradox" between opposition to the draft in principle and contempt for draft-dodgers who ran away rather than serve -- it's only in your mind. It disappears when you understand that one may be opposed to a law in principle yet still respect it _as_ the law.
Sorry, don't buy it. I don't believe that you can take the position that a law is unconstitutional and a violation of the very ideas upon which our system is founded (an entirely true position, by the way) and then criticize those who refuse to follow that law, whatever you presume their motivation to be. It is my position, and frankly I don't believe there is any possible argument that could make me change it, that refusing a military draft is not only acceptable but nearly obligatory. To acquiesce to the notion that an individual is the property of the government and must kill or die whenever they are ordered to do so, even when the war is unjust, is to violate all rational notions of patriotism. My loyalty is not to the government but to a set of principles. When following the government's orders would violate those principles, one has an obligation not to follow those orders. To do otherwise is, as Ronald Reagan noted, to fall into the same trap as those who cooperated with the Nazi government. If they had put the principles of morality before loyalty to government, the holocaust might not have happened. And if more Americans had refused the order to kill in Vietnam, there might be 2-3 million Indochinese still alive today.
Those who act to oppose an unjust law by accepted means -- civil disobedience, civil activism, lawsuit -- yes, they deserve our respect. But not those who betray the society they belong to by simply running away. Or to put it in simpler terms: fighting the draft (by nonviolent, legal means) is worthy of respect. Fleeing it is not.
Your focus is in the wrong place. Our society was betrayed by the men who ran that war, not by those who refused to fight in it. Aim your disrespect at them. Or don't. I have more than enough of it to throw at them all on my own.
I'm no fan of the military draft, but I'm not sure that it can be categorically excluded as an acceptable option for the reasons you cite. There are many civic functions, such as jury service and compulsory process, that are enforced through the coercive power of the state. Our judicial system, which for all its flaws is the primary line of defense of civil rights and liberties in this country, would collapse if everyone felt they had the right to opt out because the state doesn't "own" individual citizens.
Imagine someone charged with draft evasion being deprived of a jury trial and unable to secure the appearance of defense witnesses.
I'm no fan of the military draft, but I'm not sure that it can be categorically excluded as an acceptable option for the reasons you cite. There are many civic functions, such as jury service and compulsory process, that are enforced through the coercive power of the state. Our judicial system, which for all its flaws is the primary line of defense of civil rights and liberties in this country, would collapse if everyone felt they had the right to opt out because the state doesn't "own" individual citizens.
I think there is a fairly obvious difference here. Doing jury duty upholds the ideals upon which our constitutional system is based, while killing or dying for an unjust reason is contrary to it. It's the fact that one would be required to kill or die merely because the government decides it's a good idea that I am objecting to. My basic premise is that the question of whether the government's decision to go to war is a just one must be answered first before determining whether the decision to evade or comply with the draft constitutes a lack of patriotism or an unjustified decision. And if the answer to that question is that the war is unjust, then the answer to the second question must always be that those who evade the draft are not only justified in doing so, but in some sense even obligated to do so. The position that those who evade a draft have committed a horrible deed even if the war into which they were to be drafted was based upon lies and injustice, which is the position of those I am criticizing, is patently absurd. If our government went off the deep end and decided to invade England, which has done no wrong to us and is not a threat to us, and instituted a draft to do so, I would argue that we have an obligation to resist that illegal and unconstitutional order by the government.
Good Afternoon
Which part of the constitution are you quoting in regards to the defintion of the Congressional right to declare war.
In other words, where does the Constitution talk about just and unjust wars.
Sincerely
I understand your point, Ed. All I'm saying is that the military draft cannot be categorically rejected. Unyielding anti-collectivism is simply not workable if we are to have anything resembling a cohesive society.
"Doing jury duty upholds the ideals upon which our constitutional system is based, while killing or dying for an unjust reason is contrary to it."
Assuming that is true, it's not quite the same as your original statement. This above is a criticism of a draft in an unjust war. Before you wrote:
"It is my position, and frankly I don't believe there is any possible argument that could make me change it, that refusing a military draft is not only acceptable but nearly obligatory."
This is a condemnation of *all* drafts, even those in *just* wars. It seems like it would be possible to argue "it is morally obligatory to resist a draft for an unjust war" while also arguing "submitting to a draft in a just war is analogous to submitting to a jury summons."
The argument against *all* drafts, regardless of whether the war is just or not, is what Donny describes as "unyielding anti-collectivism" and, if adhered to consistently, also requires arguing against things like a jury summons.
If you accept that a jury summons is legit (and the reason you offer is very, very good), then you cannot readily argue that *all* drafts are *inherently* wrong. In fact, the argument you use in defense of a jury summons can work very well as a defense of a draft in a just war.
Steve wrote:
Which part of the constitution are you quoting in regards to the defintion of the Congressional right to declare war. In other words, where does the Constitution talk about just and unjust wars.
I don't recall making any statements whatsoever about the Congressional "right" (which really should read "authority") to declare war, or about the Constitution talking about just and unjust wars.
This is a condemnation of *all* drafts, even those in *just* wars. It seems like it would be possible to argue "it is morally obligatory to resist a draft for an unjust war" while also arguing "submitting to a draft in a just war is analogous to submitting to a jury summons."
Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. My position is that all drafts, regardless of whether the war is just or not, are unconstitutional and unjust (i.e. the draft is unjust regardless of whether the war is), but not that one should never fight in a war. The first question one must answer is whether the war fits our principles or not. If it does, then one should fight in it if that is possible and necessary (for example, I think that anyone who was able to fight in WW2 should have gone to fight, regardless of whether there was a draft - the future of our civilization was quite literally at stake on multiple fronts). If it does not fit our principles, as Vietnam did not, then I believe one has an obligation not to fight and a corrolary obligation to resist the draft.
This is not an indictment of those who did choose to fight in Vietnam, by the way. They saw their obligations differently than I did, and that is of course their right as Americans to do so. What I'm challenging is the criticism they often give to those who chose to resist the draft. Given that the draft is unconstitutional in the first place, and given that the war itself was unjust, the decision to evade is not only acceptable, it is, in my personal view, obligatory.
My argument is that principle must come before obedience in such matters. The only alternative to that is to argue that one simply must obey the government's orders to kill or die regardless of the justness of the war. And if that is the case, it's not possible to take a principled stand against another Hitler - whoever controls the government is able to command our obedience to their orders to kill or die for whatever cause they choose at any time. That I cannot accept.
Good Morning
You have said before that the Principles that must be followed are the principles that are given in the Constitution.
You have stated that a draft is unconstitutional.
You have seen Section 8 of the Constitution allowing Congress to raise Armies and Navies.
Again, I ask the question. What section of the Constitution specifically states that a draft is unconstitutional?
I am trying to find legal rulings that state a military draft is unconstitutional but haven't found any yet.
Sincerely
I'm sorry
It just dawned on me what you are saying.
The war in Vietnam was never declared by Congress, even though they funded it. Therefore a case could be made that the draft would be unconstitutional at that point because the people of the United States had not spoken in favor of the war. Therefore the people should not be subject to a military draft.
Sincerely
You have said before that the Principles that must be followed are the principles that are given in the Constitution.
No I didn't. The Constitution is not a set of principles, it is a structural document, a set of rules and authorizations intended to implement a set of principles. The principles themselves are found in the Declaration of Independence, and that is what I have specifically mentioned. In that document, the founders opposed even the notion of a standing army, much less forced service.
You have stated that a draft is unconstitutional.
And it is.
You have seen Section 8 of the Constitution allowing Congress to raise Armies and Navies.
Of course I have.
Again, I ask the question. What section of the Constitution specifically states that a draft is unconstitutional?
Actually, this is the first time you've asked this question. You previously asked about the "Congressional right to declare war", which has nothing to do with a draft (they can declare war without a draft, of course) and you asked where in the Constitution it speaks of a just and unjust war (it does not, of course, nor did I say that it did). You did not ask why it is unconstitutional, but I will of course be happy to tell you. The 13th amendment bans involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime and there are no other exceptions to it. A draft obviously establishes involuntary servitude.
I'm sorry, It just dawned on me what you are saying.The war in Vietnam was never declared by Congress, even though they funded it. Therefore a case could be made that the draft would be unconstitutional at that point because the people of the United States had not spoken in favor of the war. Therefore the people should not be subject to a military draft.
Nope, still hasn't dawned. Whether a draft is or isn't constitutional has nothing to do with whether Congress has the authority to declare war. War can be declared without having a draft. And of course we've had drafts without a declaration of war. They are separate issues.
Selective Draft Law cases
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/03.html#t39
Sorry, Ed
You have to do better then that. It has been argued many times.
245 US 366 is a good place to start
Sincerely
Steve-
You haven't addressed my argument at all - the same argument made by Daniel Webster (who argued it was unconstitutional even before the 13th amendment), Ronald Reagan, John Whitehead and numerous others on the right. I don't really care if the Supreme Court disagreed with me in 1918. The Supreme Court of that era made many ridiculous rulings. I didn't premise my argument on Supreme Court approval, I premised my argument on the reasons I've already given. Not only have you not disputed the substance of those arguments, you've shown no signs of comprehending them at all, having asked 3 entirely different questions that you apparently thought were directly related but weren't.
Question still stands
Why is the draft unconstitutional given the fact that Congress has the power to raise armies and navies and is in fact required to do so.
Hamilton writes in #24 and 25 that while unsavory, a national army must be raised to preserve the Union and defend against outside forces.
I have not come across any statements from them in regards to the manner in which this could be accomplished and have in fact found instances where the draft was challenged only to have it dismissed.
'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.''
Why is the draft unconstitutional given the fact that Congress has the power to raise armies and navies and is in fact required to do so.
Raising armies does not require a draft. And remember that the founders were opposed even to standing armies, that's why Section 8 limits appropriations for armies to 2 years or less. Congress having the power to raise armies has nothing to do with whether the draft is constitutional or not. Nowhere does the constitution give them the power to force people to fight whenever they say so, and the 13th amendment bans all involuntary servitude unless it's punishment for a crime. It's quite simple.
As far as the quote from the 1918 Supreme Court goes, again, so what? I don't really care whether they agreed or disagreed, and the passage you cite is little more than incoherent babbling. They invented a "sacred and noble duty" that was nowhere mentioned or even implied in the founding documents of this nation, and then leaped from that false premise to the equally faulty conclusion that if one has a "sacred and noble duty" to "defend" the nation that therefore the government has the authority to force them to do so even when the war has nothing to do with defending us at all. Even if their premise is correct, it does not logically lead to their conclusion. So if your only argument against the substance of my position is that the Supreme Court in 1918 issued an illogical refutation of it...well, you're gonna have to do better than that.
Jeez
Thats too bad.
I thought maybe you would read up on it and tell me the Court's findings in a case where the military draft in question was found to be unconstitutional.
Crud
I guess I will have to keep reading the Federalists Papers for mention of a draft. Or maybe Jefferson. Oh wait he had slaves.
Sincerely
Jeez
Thats too bad.
I thought maybe you would read up on it and tell me the Court's findings in a case where the military draft in question was found to be unconstitutional.
Boy, you are really bad at the understated passive-aggressive sarcasm thing. I've told you now multiple times that I didn't base my argument upon any Supreme Court ruling, and I've even explained why the 1918 ruling is illegitimate. You have not addressed any of those substantive arguments at all. Yet you continue to throw out these little red herrings. To what end? If you have no intention of actually addressing the substance of my arguments, then go jerk yourself off somewhere else.
I guess I will have to keep reading the Federalists Papers for mention of a draft. Or maybe Jefferson. Oh wait he had slaves.
You will not find any support for a military draft among the founding fathers, they were advocates of volunteer armies (that's what the militias were that they saw fit to mention several times). They did not have a draft during the revolutionary war, and the one chance that many of those same men had to pass a draft, during the war of 1812, they voted down. Daniel Webster's speech on the floor of the House of Representatives in December 1814 pointed out that even before the passage of the 13th amendment, a military draft was unconstitutional because no such power had been granted to the federal government. Each state had its own voluntary militia and the Constitution did not even allow for a permanent standing army, much less the authority of the federal government to force people to join it. Webster said:
Webster was right, but you have not addressed his reasoning any more than you have addressed mine. Nor have you addressed the fact that the 13th amendment, long after the founders died, banned involuntary servitude. If you'd care to actually engage that reasoning, feel free. Otherwise, go away and stop polluting my blog with your juvenile attempts at sarcasm in lieu of logic.
Webster argument helped defeat a movement to install a draft for the invasion of Canada before the War of 1812. There was no resolution as to the constitutionality of a military draft from that speech or the defeat of the bill.
Hamilton wrote that much as he hated the idea, there would be a need for a standing national army and that Congress had the power to raise and pay for the Army. The details were left up to future generations as to what that meant.
The first time the question came before the Supreme Court they ruled unanimously that it was constitutional given the requirement of Congress to raise the Army. You can disagree with their findings but I have a hard time with your lack of respect for one of the foundations of freedom in this country just because you disagree.(incoherent babbling)
I am sure they were well-learned thougtful men that you could have very thoughtful discussions with.
The question of a peace-time draft has not come before the court.
Ronald Reagan never passed and amendment to the Constitution banning military conscrption.
You may say it is un-constitutional but as of yet the ruling of the 1918 court is the law of the land.
You, can of course, pass an amendment that clarifies some of the thoughts of the founding fathers.
Your blog, so you can be rude, but jeez. Ed
Sincerely
FYI
I have never said I was for the draft. I was just wondering what the basis for your "unconstitutional" claim was, exactly.
And arguing the dissenting opinion, in order to clarify my own thoughts.
We conscripted 10 million men and women for WW2. There was an Isolationist treaty in place at the time. One question could be would 10 mil people extra people have volunteered for that war or was that draft unconstitutional as well?
Sincerely
Steve, seriously - go away. You're just an irritant. I don't think you have any intention of engaging in an actual conversation, I think you come here just for attention. Well you got it. Now go away.
Steve, try to understand Ed Brayton, he never learned to accept that he is no academic whatsoever, but he desperately wanted to be one.
Anon-
You should at least have the courage to use your real name while taking shots from the shadows. And since you know absolutely nothing about me, feel free to fuck off.