• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House shoots down draft, 402-2

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
It gets even better:

The bill, which languished in Congress with no real support since its introduction in January 2003, has often been used as evidence the Republicans favor a draft, despite the fact that a Democrat sponsored it, 14 other Democrats cosponsored it, and no Republicans supported it.
Click to expand...
 
Here are the names of the Congressmen who sponsored the bill, in case you are voting in their districts this year:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]
 
You know, I have to say, usually when I hear people talk about a draft coming, it's not based on that bill per se; rather, people see a draft coming because the US is involved in two fairly large deployments with no withdrawal plans, and Bush seems to be constantly eyeing the next target in the War On Terror (tm).
 
The bill:

Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.
Click to expand...
 
Cleon said:
You know, I have to say, usually when I hear people talk about a draft coming, it's not based on that bill per se; rather, people see a draft coming because the US is involved in two fairly large deployments with no withdrawal plans, and Bush seems to be constantly eyeing the next target in the War On Terror (tm).
Click to expand...

I agree with you but, like you, I'm not usually conversing with those that take e-mail campaigns seriously.

The draft might happen, especially if we are to 'occupy' too much territory, but their are better, cheaper, solutions, [in my novice estimation]. Increasing pay and benefits for servicemembers is the most logical one as it most directly addresses the supply/demand issue. I suppose the draft also addresses that issue but it is bound to be less efficient; conscripts generally are less motivated and more problematic; the politics of the draft distracts from the goal; etcetras I can't think of at the moment.

I think it is [a bit] misleading to suggest that no withdrawal plans exist, at least in the context I think you wrote it.

To clarify, I don't think there is any intention of withdrawl. There is an 'exit stratagy' so far as conflict is concerned but not withdrawl. I think we'll be in Iraq and Afganistan for the foreseeable future. Not because we have to be but because we'll want to be. I'm using Germany, Japan and Korea, as a model. Regarding that model, I think the forseeable futrue regarding Germany, Japan and Korea is at hand. I'm foreseeing a troop realignment from Asia and Europe to the Middle East.

I think their are going to be substantial problems with that realignment, but none so insurmountable as to require a draft. I should probably address those problems in another thread.
 
Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.
Click to expand...

- I personally like this. IF we're going to have a draft, why not include females as well as males? It's a new army, and there are plenty of roles women can (and do) fill.

- The downside of course is that you're going to have some crabby women in the service after they're drafted. ;)
 
Everyone says we wonthave a draft cause its unpopular and we have a volunteer force. SO WHAT! Has the draft EVER been popular?? We had a volunteer force during Nam that didnt stop a draft.

My question is, whats the difference with our military now as when compatred to Nam. (the last draft)? Everyone says we need more troops in Iraq. How can we so easily right off a draft if troop #'s is a real world problem.
 
One way they can avoid the draft is to increase the signing bonuses and pay. How about a $150,000 signing bonus and $500,000 a year pay? Anyone think that would increase military enrollment?
 
Tony said:
One way they can avoid the draft is to increase the signing bonuses and pay. How about a $150,000 signing bonus and $500,000 a year pay? Anyone think that would increase military enrollment?
Click to expand...

Sure would. And then I'd bankrupt the nation!!

Think of the draft as eminent domain. If the govt needs it, it can take without being fleeced because they are desparate.
 
The problem with having a draft is that the public by and large has to agree to it and the public is nowhere near that right now. Introducing a bill to start a draft when you know it's impossible for it to pass is just political posturing. There's not going to be a daft anytime soon.
 
Tmy said:
Sure would. And then I'd bankrupt the nation!!
Click to expand...

Then I guess the government will have to think twice before another boondoggle.

Think of the draft as eminent domain. If the govt needs it, it can take without being fleeced because they are desparate.
Click to expand...

In other words, since the government doesn't want to pay market value for labor, and since the government doesn't want to be held accountable for it's mistakes. It's going to force supposedly free citizens into slavery.
 
Luke T. said:
Here are the names of the Congressmen who sponsored the bill, in case you are voting in their districts this year:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]
Click to expand...
These bills are often just to grab attention. These democrats think that the current administration too easily(concious wise) sends our men off to war. They do this to make a point. You'll notice that of all those who sponsored the bill listed above, only one voted for it.

I'm of the opinion that there are better ways to make a point than waste tax payer dollars with this crap, but don't believe that those people on that list actually wanted to reinstate the draft.
 
ManfredVonRichthoffen said:
I'm of the opinion that there are better ways to make a point than waste tax payer dollars with this crap
Click to expand...

Is it actually a waste? In my opinion, anything that stops Congress from doing real legislation is money well spent. I, for one, am glad we don't get all the government we pay for. :)

Jeremy
 
Luke T. said:
Here are the names of the Congressmen who sponsored the bill, in case you are voting in their districts this year:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]
Click to expand...

They are just realistic of the military needs of the future.

Face it, we are going to attack Iran next, and quite possible another M-E nation. Not to mention the military serving over there right now will eventually need to be replaced with fresh blood.
 
Tmy said:
Think of the draft as eminent domain. If the govt needs it, it can take without being fleeced because they are desparate.
Click to expand...

Eminent domain doesn't help it much, as that's a Fifth Amendment violation. For that matter, how is a draft not involuntry servitude, and hence a violation of the 13th Amendment (asked many times, but never answered)?
 
shanek said:
Eminent domain doesn't help it much, as that's a Fifth Amendment violation. For that matter, how is a draft not involuntry servitude, and hence a violation of the 13th Amendment (asked many times, but never answered)?
Click to expand...

Because the government says it's ok?
 
Tony said:
Then I guess the government will have to think twice before another boondoggle.



In other words, since the government doesn't want to pay market value for labor, and since the government doesn't want to be held accountable for it's mistakes. It's going to force supposedly free citizens into slavery.
Click to expand...

BINGO!




AS for Em domain violationg the 5th? The power of E.D. is also in the consitution. A good topic for another thread is an upcoming Supreme CT case as to whether the Govt can use em domain powers to benefit the local economy. ie Take land to hand over to big business.
 
Tmy said:
AS for Em domain violationg the 5th? The power of E.D. is also in the consitution.
Click to expand...

Where? My guess is you'll probably come back with the Fifth Amendment, which says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But that's a restrictive clause, NOT an enumerative clause. What enumerative clause allows the government to take my property whenever it wants, with or without "just compensation"?
 
I suppose the government has the power to claim eminent domain if it is "neccesary and proper" in order to exert their other powers, and they provide just compensation.

Although I agree with you that the draft seems unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom