Nearly a hundred years ago, the head of the Philadelphia Communist party suggested to conscripts for World War I that the draft was a violation of the 13th amendment rights against involuntary servitude. The government’s response for the expression of this presumably despicable notion was to throw him into jail for a decade, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court (it was from that decision that the “cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” dictum came from.)
So now, of course, when we live in a time that’s far more conducive to open discussion, and we have a much more understanding Supreme Court, I’m moved to wonder…*is* a draft unconstitutional? The constitution gives congress the right to “raise” armies, but I didn’t notice anything that specifically said they can commandeer citizens against the will of the citizens. In fact, there’s yet another amendment–the 5th one–that says citizens will not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That is to say, the only situation in which the Constitution seems to say it’s okay to deprive someone of their basic freedom of movement and right to have their own stuff is if they’re paying for a criminal act of which they’ve been convicted.
So…is there a case to be made for a draft being unconstitutional? And don’t tell me it’s constitutional simply because it’s existed before unless you’re ready to argue that African-Americans should never have been counted as more than 3/5 of a person because that was the way it was done before.
PAD
• 
This is, obviously, a question that is not simply black or white.
While I deplore the idea of the draft returning in this day and age, especially when you look at the wars we’re fighting, where we’re fighting them, why we’re fighting them, and who we’re fighting them for…
… I can see why the draft was needed in the past. Atleast for some wars; not all of them though (Vietnam springs to mind).
Constitutional? I don’t know.
Some nations in Europe have mandatory service of 2 years or so, but none of them are looking to pick a fight with anybody.
Sure it’s constitutional. In the same way the federal income tax is constitutional and legal, despite it being, you know, unconstitutional and illegal.
I think the draft is one of those things that the legal system would prefer we not look at too closely. By a strict reading of 13th and 5th amendments, of course it’s unconstitutional.
However, with the Supreme Court we’ve got, there is no way in hëll it will be declared unconstitutional. I rather liken it to the right to bear arms. Any reasonable person reading the second amendment will come away with the impression that the founders were talking about being in a state or local militia, not the bad kind, and, as part of that, having the right to bear arms. But that somehow got construed as, “Sure, it’s okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense.”
And, yes, that last sentence was hyperbole. Relax.
Didn’t they used to call getting drafted “Getting Shanghaied” in the old days?
In the bar, relaxing, you take a drink of your beverage of choice, pass out, wake up and you’re in the military.
The draft is even worse. Glad I’m past the age to be eligible.
I have no problem defending America, but Iraq has nothing to do with protecting America, neither does the continued presence in Afghanistan. By that logic we need to be in Suadi Arabia and N. Korea as well.
The Draft is nothing more that state-sanctioned kidnapping and forcing citizens to go out and kill/be killed against their will.
“But that somehow got construed as, “Sure, it’s okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense.”
And, yes, that last sentence was hyperbole. Relax.”
You mean my shoulder-mounted rocket launcher isn’t legal??
Uh-oh…
As for the draft, I think Heinlein had a valid point – if your society has decayed to the point that you can’t get enough volunteers to defend it, perhaps it’s outlived its usefulness.
And yes, I did volunteer, and served an entire 3 1/2 years in the Air Force (at that time, a lot of guys were getting RIFfed, so the Pentagon could afford their fancy new weapons systems. It wasn’t until later that someone figured out they needed people to run those weapons systems…).
Um, the Federal Income Tax is Constitutional. They amended the Constitution to allow it. Specious arguments about techincalities in the ratifications aside, of course. Because they’re specious.
The draft, on the other hand, has never had a specific Amendment saying that it’s okay. And thus it is up for interpretation. Does the draft violate due process, or is the way it is implemented qualify as a form of due process (after all, the procedure is pretty clearly laid out, you get paid (if not much), etc)? Is it involuntary servitude as described in the 13th Amendment, or is it closer to the sort of civic duty that includes serving on juries?
Remember, rights are not license to do what you will, they include responsibilities as well. I would say that serving in the military is not an inherently unreasonable responsibility in exchange for one’s rights. It’s just that the draft tends to be implemented in ways that are themselves unjust. Unfortunately, the draft tends to be used only in times when emergencies let the executive branch steamroller the Constitution in the name of preserving the Republic (even Lincoln’s administration ran roughshod over the Constitution when it came to dissidents).
Obviously, for people like me or Peter, the draft is not a personal danger. If things are bad enough they’re drafting overweight, bespectacled guys over 30, we’re pretty dámņ toast anyway. But you’d have to be a fool to say one should never argue against an injustice that only falls on the heads of others.
But that somehow got construed as, “Sure, it’s okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense.”
And yet, this isn’t that far off the mark.
IIRC, it was Cheney who recently spoke at an NRA convention. The NRA, of course, hopes that the assault weapon ban laws that are set to expire are not renewed.
A parent of one of the Columbine victims reportedly tried to get into the convention, but was turned away by security and was heckled by others. What a nice group, eh?
Why anybody needs an assault weapon is beyond me, but then, I don’t need the NRA to begin with.
I’m not anywhere near well-versed enough in the Constitution to make any definitive statements about this. I’ll just note that “due process of law” doesn’t necessarily mean a criminal trial. Just off the top of my head, the governmental power of Imminent (sp?) Domain which allows the govt to come in and buy your private property at what they consider to be a fair price and you have to sell. I don’t remember what administrative hoops that the govt has to jump through for this, but I know that there’s no trial involved. I never knew what, if any, “due process” the govt has to go through to start drafting people, though it would be interesting to research, I’m sure.
I’ll throw out another thought, however. If it’s unconstitutional to draft people into the military, is it unconstitutional to issue summons for Jury Duty? It seems to me that it’s the same in principle and only different in the details (timeframe, relative risk). I know very few people who actually want to serve on a jury. Most people do it because the govt says they have to. You could call that Forced Servitude as well. Of course I believe the Constitution also guarantees the right to a trial by a jury of your peers and charges the govt to maintain a military and provide for the common defense.
I have to come back later a read this thread. It could make for some very interesting reading.
The constitutionality of the draft has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in 1981 in ROSTKER v. GOLDBERG, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) The Supreme Court Opinion states: “Congress is given the power under the Constitution “To raise and support Armies,” “To provide and maintain a Navy,” and “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Art. I, 8, cls. 12-14. Pursuant to this grant of authority Congress has enacted the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III) (the MSSA or the Act). Section 3 of the Act, 62 Stat. 605, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 453, empowers the President, by proclamation, to require the registration of “every male citizen” and male resident aliens between the ages of 18 and 26. The purpose of this registration is to facilitate any eventual conscription: pursuant to 4 (a) of the Act, 62 Stat. 605, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 454 (a), those persons required to register under 3 are liable for [453 U.S. 57, 60] training and service in the Armed Forces. The MSSA registration provision serves no other purpose beyond providing a pool for subsequent induction.”
“Involuntary servitude” refers to slavery in which one person owns another as property and there is no remuneration or time limitation on that “servitude”. It does not apply to military conscription, high school or motherhood.
The due process clause also does not apply here as the draft would be restarted through the very due process which the amendment affords us.
I’m against the war, too. I’m against the draft, too. Not because it’s unconstitutional but because it is wrong.
Formerly Known As
——————————————————————————–
Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?
The topic of a draft comes up whenever the opponents of a war or an administration want to lower American morale. Until it’s more than one appeasing, “moderate” Republican senator suggesting “we think about” the draft (and then stopping short of actually calling for it), it’s all just speculation.
However, I can think of no better time to institute a draft than when the very lives of ordinary American civilians stateside are threatened a la 9/11. Whether one thinks that is the case today is another matter.
DW
David beat me to it. The “due process of law” is Congress passing the law allowing the Executive Branch to do it.
So, it’s constitutional, but not necessarily desirable – even the military doesn’t want it.
“Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?”
Yes. Yes, it was.
Next question?
One thing that I have a question about? If they ever do take up the draft again will it include women? Equality of ALL people and all. I’d be mad if it was reinstated but I would be evn madder if it didn’t. How hypocrytical a message would that be. Oooops forgot we were talking about the government.
It’s actually a kind of a multi-layered question…
No, the draft itself is not unconstitutional per se.. The constitution requires due process, and there is a well ‘due process.’
Where the issue can get interesting is the constitutionality of the elements of the process (as in the example of Women being drafted, mentioned above). If someone REALLY wanted there could be some interesting challenges to portions of the relevant laws. Now, if those portions would be held to be unconstitutional, a stay would have to be issued upon the process as a whole, thus in effect making the draft unconstitutional until such issues are corrected in the underlying law.
Fun, huh…
I just wonder if the claim could be made that my right to life and liberty extends to me taking an extended vacation in Canada?
SEAN
“Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?”
Yes. Yes, it was.
Next question?”
Pleassseeee! How could the draft been wrong in WW2 when we were being attacked by Japan? That’s just outrageous.
Mark L. wrote: “David beat me to it. The ‘due process of law’ is Congress passing the law allowing the Executive Branch to do it. So, it’s constitutional, but not necessarily desirable – even the military doesn’t want it.”
Exactly. The military has been made up of volunteers for three decades. Why would we ever want to go back to a system where the majority of people don’t want to be there, and can’t wait to leave?
The draft served its purpose as long as the majority of Americans felt it was their duty to serve in the military, but that sense of obligation waned by the closing days of Vietnam. Changing with the times, the military then went to the all-volunteer force, and hasn’t looked back.
Someone mentioned jury duty as involuntary servitude, and that made me laugh. It’s a bit sad how American attitudes have changed in the past 40 years. John F. Kennedy’s call “To ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” almost sounds naively quaint today. And that’s a darn shame.
Russ Maheras
I seem to rememer reading once that, every time a case on the Constitutionality of the draft has reached the courts, the military found a way to quietly discharge the person suing, thus removing their standing to sue, and avoiding the chance the draft might be overturned.
I may well be wrong — I can’t remember the source, so I can’t vouch for credibility.
The draft is an issue I’m kind of torn on. On a visceral level, I’m against it; it seems so counter-intuitive to make people who don’t want to be there put in the armed forces. On an intellectual level, however, I can see some of its points. The military is made up disproportionately of minorities/lower- or lower-middle class personnel, because for whatever reasons (there are many theories) they are predominantly the ones to volunteer. And the draft helps balance that out by bringing in a broader range of people (unless, of course, you’re lucky (or well-to-do) enough to get a high lottery number…).
The draft was wrong during WWII for the same reason it’s always wrong – it is a bad thing to force conscript troops to fight for one. WHo attacked whom is totally irrelevant to the moral question of whether it can be “right” to force people into armed service against their will.
On the other hand, I don’t recall there having been any shortage of volunteers during WWII…
“The draft was wrong during WWII for the same reason it’s always wrong – it is a bad thing to force conscript troops to fight for one. WHo attacked whom is totally irrelevant to the moral question of whether it can be “right” to force people into armed service against their will. “
In the case of WW2, ‘who attacked who is incredibly relevant.’ But aside fromm WW2, if one country attacks another, then the latter better defend themselves at the risk of being eliminated/killed/destroyed. Expecting my countrymen to fight to defend our survival isn’t a moral dilema-it’s just common sense. If a tribe in Africa, is going to be massacred by another tribe, then that tribe better make sure every able man is going to fight to protect their community, friends, family, etc. Once can’t think of the draft in absolutes.
John F. Kennedy’s call “To ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” almost sounds naively quaint today.
It is quaint, and it’s also ášš backwards.
Everybody should ask themselves what their government is doing for them, because that’s the purpose of our gov’t.
Not for us to serve it, but for it to serve us.
“A parent of one of the Columbine victims reportedly tried to get into the convention, but was turned away by security and was heckled by others. What a nice group, eh?”
Kind of OT but there’s a fascinating article about the psychology of the killers at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/fr/ifr/
Amazing stuff. Scary as hëll.
Me: “Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?”
Johnatham (the other one) “Yes. Yes, it was. Next question?”
Tell THAT to the Holocaust survivors whose liberation depended upon the additional troops the US had as a result of the draft. In the case of WWII, I think the ends justified the means.
In Vietnam? Hëll no. In WWII? Hëll yes.
“The draft was wrong during WWII for the same reason it’s always wrong – it is a bad thing to force conscript troops to fight for one. WHo attacked whom is totally irrelevant to the moral question of whether it can be “right” to force people into armed service against their will.”
I have to disagree. While I sympathize with libertarians, we do not live entirely as individuals. We are all (or at least those of us who live in the United States) part of a community, and as community members we have responsibilities toward one another. Military service is a “free rider” problem. Having a strong military benefits everyone within the country, as it makes us all less susceptible to conventional attack. This is true for everyone whether we pay taxes or not, or whether we’ve served in the past or not. This is fine in most circumstances– the military has chosen a professional volunteer force as its primary strategy. If you want to volunteer and do your part, fine, but for the last several decades we haven’t needed you. (The apparent superiority to a volunteer system is the reason that I oppose the draft.) That, however, has nothing to do with whether there is any moral dilemma to requiring a conscript to do his part for the community, when for so long the community has protected him, and always will continue to do so.
In a sense, this remains a voluntary system. We all enjoy the privileges of citizenship in the Republic– civil liberties protected by a consistently fair court system, law enforcement, a free economy. If you wish to forego the burdens of protecting that system, then surrender its benefits as well. Move. Go to Siberia or Marrakesh or some other place than here. But don’t assume that having a portion of your income withheld by the IRS discharges you from any further duties.
With regard to PAD’s original question, “Formerly Known As” essentially provided the answer. It’s constitutional because the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional. Robert Jackson, my favorite Justice, partly because he was one of the last to have been a prosecutor, once wrote, “We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final.” So “what the Constitution says” and “what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says” are for all practical purposes the same thing.
The reason the Court is right, however, is the Necessary and Proper Clause. There is an enabling clause in the Constitution that authorizes the Government to undertake measures “necessary and proper” to carrying out its enumerated duties. In times of need it is “necessary and proper” to the Congress’s right to raise an army that the Army be allowed to conscript soldiers. Its constitutionality would be secure even if Jonathan (the Other One) were right about it being immoral (which he isn’t).
I thought I had made myself plain, but apparently that is not the case (either that, or some folks just take some sort of perverse pleasure in willfully misunderstanding my words).
Any nation, when attacked, has the absolute right to defend itself. However, said nation should be able to defend itself ably with volunteer troops, as the United States is doing today. If it is necessary to use conscripts, if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall.
Does anyone believe that the draft was necessary in order to raise the US Armed Forces for WWII? I don’t recall many tales of young men cowering in fear, dreading that letter from the Draft Board, not wanting to go fight the Nazis. During Korea and Vietnam, sure – and of course during the peacetime drafts – but WWII?
Mr Jones:
1) 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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html
2) I hate to sound like Clinton (boy, do I hate to sound like Clinton, but it comes from being a lawyer) but the Second Amendment depends a lot on your definition of a “militia.” If you think that a “militia” looks like the National Guard, then individual gun ownership seems at first blush to be shaky. Of course, this makes the Framers seem a little weird, if they went to the trouble of writing a constitutional amendment to allow a department of the Army to arm itself. Plus you run into the problem that the communal right, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” is worded exactly like the First Amendment “right of the people to peaceably assemble,” which implies that Freedom of Assembly means the Constitution allows governmental pep rallies. Howver, in the 18th Century when the Amendment was written, a “militia” was an armed citizenry. In any event, the reference to the militia is in a subordinate clause explaining the rationale of the law, not the law itself; the actual command of the Amendment extends to “the right of the people.” As I mentioned before, if you take that to be a communal right rather than an individual one, then you have problems with the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
3) The Fifth Amendment presents no problem. It requires “due process of law” to deprive someone of liberty, and the draft is instituted by Act of Congress, i.e. due process. The Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on “involuntary servitude” is only a problem if you don’t read it in context next to the ban on slavery as a similar ban on serfdom. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865 by a Congress that had enabled massive conscription in order to reconstruct a large mass of slaveholding territory, not to apologize for the manner in which that territory’s insurrection was quelled.
“if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall.”
Tell that to the old, weak, and young who will die at the hands of attackers because someone decides that a draft is immoral. I suspect they’d have a different feeling about that.
“Any nation, when attacked, has the absolute right to defend itself. However, said nation should be able to defend itself ably with volunteer troops, as the United States is doing today. If it is necessary to use conscripts, if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall.”
Gee, Belgium didn’t seem to be able to defend itself from Germany with its standing army. I guess they deserved to be overrun by the blitzkrieg. Yay Germans! They deserved to win! (Yes I’m making fun of you and twisting your words.. but it’s SO EASY. Maybe you should think them through better before posting them.)
“Does anyone believe that the draft was necessary in order to raise the US Armed Forces for WWII? I don’t recall many tales of young men cowering in fear, dreading that letter from the Draft Board, not wanting to go fight the Nazis. During Korea and Vietnam, sure – and of course during the peacetime drafts – but WWII?”
Weird that you seem to imply that the morality of a given draft is inversely proportional to the morality of the war it’s imposed for, but that isn’t even the biggest logical problem with your argument. The United States mobilized 16,123,455 troops during the Second World War. You really think they’d have all volunteered? Or do you just think we sent too dámņ many troops into Normandy and we could have made do with fewer Rangers on Pointe du Hoc? Higher casualties, and maybe a couple hundred thousand more Jews would have died before we made it to the Rhine, but a small price to pay to not “force people into armed service against their will.”
There is absolutely nothing immoral about using every available means to defend your country. Lincoln used the draft to fill out the Federal Army, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, coerced the Maryland legislature to prevent secession, and incidentally saved the union and abolished slavery. I find it difficult to question his tactics.
Random questions from a man too old for a draft, and who would probably be 4-F anyway:
Isn’t a draftee a POW on his own side?
Granted, we must respect someone willing to go into danger for a good cause — but who would defer to politicians on what a good cause is?
Why were people who opposed Nazis before Pearl Harbor later under suspicion for being ‘premature anti-fascists?’
Convicts and soldiers are two classes of people for whom the government has taken almost complete responsibility — how are each treated?
‘Everybody should ask themselves what their government is doing for them, because that’s the purpose of our gov’t.
Not for us to serve it, but for it to serve us.”
Okay, am I the only one here reading about how the government is supposed to serve us and flashing back to an certain “Twilight Zone” episode?
As for the Supreme Court having said the draft was Constitutional twenty years ago…that’s nice. Forty years ago, they said a woman’s right to choose was Consitutional, and the President we have in office is *ever* so eager to honor that decision.
If so much time, energy and political capital can be spent on trying to make one Constitutional thing unConstitutional, why should the debate supposedly be settled by ruling on a different Constitutional thing. “We must get the Supreme Court to go back on their decision and make abortion unconstitutional…so women can be forced to have children so they can grow up, be drafted, and sent to die at a later date thanks to another Supreme Court decision which should not, by any means, be challenged.”
Nah, I’m not tracking with that.
PAD
With capital punishment and abortion why shouldn’t drafting people and sending them off to die be constitutional as well?
“Okay, am I the only one here reading about how the government is supposed to serve us and flashing back to an certain “Twilight Zone” episode?”
I, for one, am flashing back to JFK’s inaugural address. Which is a bit odd, since I wasn’t alive then.
There is absolutely nothing immoral about using every available means to defend your country.
You’ll have half the country draft dodging. Oh yeah, I can see it all now.
Two people quoted above.
Notice the difference between the two, and then put the two together.
In the Civil War, WWI (to a lesser degree) and WWII, the draft was used in DEFENSE of the country. We had been attacked.
Were we under attack by Iraq? No.
Therein lies the problem – some are now calling for a draft to send people to fight a war that many not only do not believe we should be fighting, but is not being fought in defense of our nation.
Nor will the War on Terror, imo, be won by sheer numbers in trying to overpowering and bombing the hëll out of a group of mongrels hiding out in mountains somewhere.
Nobody is invading our country enmasse, forcing us to defend our homes.
But anybody that doubts that people would do such a thing, defend their homes to the last, if push came to shove are sadly mistaken.
Given the choice between a political draft and the economic draft we have today (affluent youth generally don’t join the armed forces — because they have no need to do so), I’ll take the political draft, which at least is supposed to include everyone equally. If you object to a war you can be a conscientious objector, right?
PAD: “We must get the Supreme Court to go back on their decision and make abortion unconstitutional…so women can be forced to have children so they can grow up, be drafted, and sent to die at a later date thanks to another Supreme Court decision which should not, by any means, be challenged.”
Since we’re all being reminded of things, allow me to trot out a favorite George Carlin bit I love:
“If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re pre-school, you’re fûçkëd. Conservatives don’t give a šhìŧ about you until you reach military age. Then you are just perfect. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”
SEAN
My views of the draft have changed as I’ve gotten older and have sons that are drafting age. I just missed the Vietnam War and remember thinking, “It could happen to me”. Maybe it was the youth but that did not worry me near as much as thinking that one of my sons could go to war.
I know that we (the whole nation)pay a price for freedom. All of our wars are said to in someway be trying to protect that freedom. I don’t know if that has always been true. However, I can imagine a situation where our freedom could be in trouble and without a draft we may not have a constitution to worry about breaking.
Well, I don’t live in America, so I guess I’m not entitled to an opinion about the American Constitution, but after reading all these discussions I really have to say one thing: Boy am I happy to live in a country (Luxemburg) so small it doesn’t really have an army to be drafted into. Especially since I’ exactly the right age right now. On the downside though, we got invaded about 20 times in the last 400 years, so my honest thanks to you guys for helping us out there 50 years ago.
OK, I guess I’m kind of ‘of the topic’ here, but it is just very difficult for me to imagin living my live and having to worry about being send into a war that I don’t agree with against my will knowing that more than a few of my sort have already died over there. Like I said, I cannot say if it is constitutional or not, but it seems very very wrong on some level.
True, in some European countries you have mandatory service of 2 years, but at least, if you are opposed to the idea of killing you can chose to do civil service instead of military service (not that wiping some gran’ma’a bum seems very attractive to me, but hey… it beats being shot at…)
Jason wrote: “Given the choice between a political draft and the economic draft we have today (affluent youth generally don’t join the armed forces — because they have no need to do so)”
The “economic draft” we have today? Isn’t that a bit cynical? Actually, if you were affluent in the 1960s, you probably could find some way to keep from getting drafted in what you called “a political draft.” Although of prime draft ages at the time, neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton were drafted, and only Bush ever wore a uniform. College deferments in the 1960s favored the wealthier Americans, didn’t they? And during the Civil War, it’s my understanding that draftees could pay someone to take their place in the Union Army if they had the money to do so.
Still, I don’t agree with your assumption that today’s all-volunteer force is an “economic draft.” I quit a mundane union job and took a 66 percent pay cut to join the military in 1978. Many people I met and worked with during my 20-year career joined for reasons other than economics. Some people joined for patriotic reasons; some for educational opportunities (technical training, professional development, and college); some joined because they had no direction and liked the structured atmosphere the services provided; some liked to travel; some liked the rush of a conflict, or the rush of working in a classified program; some liked the humanitarian side of the equation (most people have no idea just how much humanitarian aid the U.S. military dispenses); some just had to get out of their humdrum small town or claustrophobic urban neighborhood and widen their perspectives; some joined for the camaraderie; and some liked the military for a combination of the above reasons.
As far as a draft goes, in this day and age, I’d much rather have people working with me who made a conscious decision to be on the same team. Wouldn’t you?
Russ Maheras
One thing that I have a question about? If they ever do take up the draft again will it include women? Equality of ALL people and all. I’d be mad if it was reinstated but I would be evn madder if it didn’t. How hypocrytical a message would that be. Oooops forgot we were talking about the government.
Hmm, I heard this was the thing that killed the ERA amendment. If it was passed, they’d have to draft women. Right now, they don’t have to.
On the issue of the Draft. As far as the Constitional points about Due Process, I think previous posters have said it well. But here’s my additional thought. In a true war for survival like WW2, you are drafted either legally or practically, or you will lose all Constitional freedoms. If there was no legal draft and we start seeing war on our own streets, you’re going be drafted by circumstances, dead or a “slave” of another nation. In the past, where we were so far away from every other nation, this was less of a concern. Today, if a country such as China chose to go to war with us (and this is still a possibility. War on Terror has distracted us from the fact that China is a growing super-power that doesn’t care much for us), we will have no choice but to institute a draft. And if you’re not drafted, you’ll probably still be fighting.
I started reading this thread to late… but my first reaction was anger that anyone can claim civil liberties and jump up and down about being an american and having the right to question the govt… and then turn around and say I’m not going to do what the gov’t tells me to do, because I believe it’s this or that. You don’t get to choose. I did 10 years in the Air Force. I wasn’t drafted, I joined because I thought in some small way I’d be doing my part to help my country. I didn’t join to go off and kill people. I ended up in the first Gulf War (I commonly refer to it as the Big I [Roman Numberal One]). I don’t think of myself as a hero, and don’t want to be thought of or talked of that way. I did my job, as I’m sure Russ M did. I did join with the intention that if this country was ever attacked or in need, I’d be there to help. Much to my dismay, I was already discharged when 9/11 happened. I couldn’t get back in for medical reasons.
I have always thought that if you want to be an American, you need to take all of the responsibility that comes with it if you want to be able to enjoy the fruits of it. If it means being able to own a big house and drive a fancy car and be able to do all of the things that being an American enables you to do, then you may very well have to get your hands dirty and submit to the gov’t demands once in awhile. You have to take the good with the bad.
I’m not saying you can’t question the constitutionality of anything, because obviously you can, this being a free country and all. But if a draft does happen, which I suspect it won’t, then you’d better stand tall before the man and take whatever comes your way. If you are thinking of dodging it for whatever reason, then get out of the country and go find some place else to live. And don’t bother coming back when you think it’s all quieted down.
Dave Bjorlin, right on. Russ, maybe we served together, and if we didn’t, it was my loss.
Steve
“John F. Kennedy’s call “To ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” almost sounds naively quaint today.
It is quaint, and it’s also ášš backwards.
Everybody should ask themselves what their government is doing for them, because that’s the purpose of our gov’t.
Not for us to serve it, but for it to serve us.
“
It’s not ášš backwards. JFK said COUNTRY, not Government. We should do for our country (i.e. neighbors, communities, etc).
If you are thinking of dodging it for whatever reason, then get out of the country and go find some place else to live. And don’t bother coming back when you think it’s all quieted down.
If I have to leave this country as a draft dodger, obviously I don’t believe this country is worth fighting for.
Unfortunately, I’m thinking it isn’t worth the fight with the current leadership we have.
And nobody seems to give a dámņ about that.
It’s all “Die for your country or leave”, which is crap. Nobody gives a rat’s ášš whether the stuff we send our troops off to die for is even worth it.
I’ve read some really lame comments lately about how liberals are war mongers, blah blah blah, yet I don’t see the children of conservatives lining up to be shipped off to Iraq.
*I* won’t be lining up to be shipped off to Iraq because it’s just wasted lives over there. Because it’s our war mongering gov’t that has gotten us into a mess over there, and it’s doing nothing but sending body bags home.
We should do for our country (i.e. neighbors, communities, etc).
i.e., government
One other thing. Has anybody stopped to look at why they want a draft now?
Because we’re stretched too thin and now we’re going to be camping out in Iraq for god knows how long.
AND we have this other little war to fight, the unimportant one next to Iraq called the War on Terror.
Bush created this mess by stretching our forces unnecessarily thin. Yet, he’s not going to bear responsibility for this. He’s just going to nod his head with Cheney’s hand up his ášš going along with the usual ventrilaquist act.
All this talk about how each of us should put our lives on the line, and how many in the Bush Administration have walked the plank themselves?
How many of them actually saw combat?
I begin to grow annoyed.
I have NEVER said that this country is not worth fighting for. In fact, as I recall, I believe I mentioned in there somewhere that I did volunteer to give several years of my life in its defense. I left some of my peace of mind in a room four floors under the surface of Nebraska, and very nearly left some of my sanity lying next to it. I have never questioned my decision to join, nor the services I rendered during that time.
What I HAVE said is that FORCING OTHER PEOPLE to do that, whether they feel any obligation or not, is a moral and ethical wrong. It’s also a strategic error. The comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, flawed though it is, may be apt in this sole instance: In the ‘Nam, a significant portion of the soldiers serving there were drafted into service, forced against their will to take up arms. In Iraq, our men and women all volunteered to go where they were told and do what they were told – yes, even the National Guardsmen, who thought they’d be at home, guarding the nation. Compare the progress made in Iraq with the progress made in Vietnam in a similar period of time (not the same period, as Vietnam is, IIRC, somewhat larger in area than Iraq). You may find that the volunteers have been more effective, both as a fighting force and as providers of aid, than the draftees.
Remember how well a conscript army worked for the Soviet Union, after all…
I would take a sledgehammer to my own kneecaps before I allowed myself to be drafted.
You know, even though every patriotic bone in my body screams that the draft should be considered Constitutional, the libertarian in me wins out and says that it should not be. People should have a choice. (Same as they should for taking drugs and prostitution). The President – with the power of the bully pulpit – should have the ability to explain in detail the necessity of and reasons going to war, and if that isn’t enough to rally enough Americans, if we’ve really become that indifferent and soft, we’re in trouble.
It seems unlikely, however, that it will come to this. Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that he is not in favor of a draft because obviously it is better to train people who want to be there and dedicated to the cause versus those who don’t want to be there and are marking time.
Thankfully, we do still have enough people who care enough about our country’s security that we should be able to do what we need to do.
And Craig, a lot of them are “children of conservatives”. For one thing, “conservative” does not exclusively refer to “disgustingly rich white guys”. I have had to move back to my hometown for a bit to take care of some family issues, and it really is unreal. It’s a town of about 10,000, descendants of coal miners and similar professions. It’s the kind of town John Mellencamp sings about. They have mainly “conservative” values. Our county has a large number of soldiers in Iraq. They all, of course, are volunteers. They chose to do this because they come from a place where families stay together, neighbors help each other, and people have a strong love for the family and community they are a part of, and the country that has afforded them the freedoms their ancestors came here to enjoy and a lifestyle for many who have worked their way up the ladder that would leave those same ancestors in shock – and a with a sense of enormous pride.
See, when a lot of people decide to “do for their country” it doesn’t mean some knee-jerk nationalism.
It means standing in line in Philadelphia to give blood after the Twin Towers collapsed – and putting up with punks mockingly shouting ‘Not My Fight!’ – because even though we all have our own individual lives and rights, we realize that “we’re all in this together”. Mock the sentiment if you wish.
Steve,
Your service is appreciated.
One other thing, since a lot of the posts on this thread seem to imply “the rich” don’t go to war yet reap the benefits.
There was once a very wealthy young man who came from a very wealthy family He could have used his wealth to try to avoid military service when he was 18, yet he felt World War II was so important he lied about his age and actually enlisted at the age of 17, and he served his country admirably in the fight against Germany and Japan.
The wealthy young man’s name?
George Herbert Walker Bush, our 41st President.
No, a draft is not unconstitutional, in that it’s a rare case of the public defense outweighing private concerns.
An army is necessary to the security of America. Or any nation for that matter. We could sit and debate the merits of specific military operations (say, the Iraq situation), but a military in principle is necessary.
There are times when the government must compel its citizens to serve in an army to *have* an army necessary to fight for the entire nation. I’m not saying we’re living in one now, I’m just speaking to a general principle.
If the security of the nation were at stake, and nobody was willing to serve in an army for the possibility of getting killed, that would put the whole of America in jeopardy. A draft is therefore justified, because we first and foremost must insure that we *have* a nation in which to enjoy our liberties.
Thor
Or to put it another way… if it’s a choice between having a draft and having an anemic military to meet various threats to America’s security, then a draft is preferable.
Nobody *LIKES* a draft, you understand. Nor should they. But it’s better than having a military ill-prepared for the challenges it must face.