House shoots down draft, 402-2

[Luke T.]

The power of the draft is granted in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.

"The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

No challenge against the draft has succeeded, including a constitutional challenge against the Selective Service System requiring only males to register.

 

[Tmy]

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"?

The govt does compensate when they take via E.D. The thing is that you cant name your price. Ithas to be a fiar price, but not the inflated price cause you happen to be the last house needed to buyout in orderto make a runway.

 

[toddjh]

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'm with you on the 13th Amendment, but in this case I think the power is implied by this clause. What would be the purpose of including the clause if such a thing could never happen? Or are you saying it's relegated to the states, and the federal government should keep its nose out?

Jeremy

 

[shanek]

I suppose the government has the power to claim eminent domain if it is "neccesary and proper" in order to exert their other powers,

Which powers? That's my question. For a Post Office? A road? A military base? There just isn't much there, certainly not for what they're doing now. And they're not giving "just compensation," they're just taking it.

 

[shanek]

[duplicate post]

 

[Tony]

The power of the draft is granted in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.

"The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

How does this apply to the draft?

 

[shanek]

The power of the draft is granted in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.

"The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Sorry, I don't see anything in there that allows forced conscription.

No challenge against the draft has succeeded, including a constitutional challenge against the Selective Service System requiring only males to register.

Well, just look at Butler v. Perry. Tell me the government flunkies in black robes weren't talking out of their @$$es on that one.

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

"Essential powers"? If it's such an essential power, why isn't it in Article I Section 8? And why does the 13th Amendment not mean what it says? Why would it need to "introduce a novel doctrine" in order for a ban on involuntary servitude not to mean exactly that?

There is no merit in the claim that a man's labor is property, the taking of which without compensation by the state for building and maintenance of public roads violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Ah. So the governmnt can hold us as slaves all they want. The 13th amendment just stopped farmers and mill owners from doing so. Wonderful...

 

[Tony]

There is no merit in the claim that a man's labor is property, the taking of which without compensation by the state for building and maintenance of public roads violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Who said said this and when did he/she say it?

 

[Tmy]

Isnt raising an army one of those inherent powers of a country. Like regulating its borders.

The govt cant draft you just to build a road or bridge. It cant make you a slave but it can make you a soilder. (same thing?)

 

[shanek]

Who said said this and when did he/she say it?

I said that: Butler v. Perry.

 

[aerocontrols]

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] [/B]

John Lewis is the Rep from my district, and he's unbeatable here. The Republicans aren't even putting up a candidate against him.

 

[Tony]

I said that: Butler v. Perry.

What year was that? Who's Butler and who's Perry? And which one said the comment I highlighted? Is the person who said it a judge?

I'm trying to get context here. Work with me.

 

[shanek]

What year was that?

1916.

Who's Butler

Some guy who was forced to work on a bridge in Florida.

and who's Perry?

Sheriff of Columbia County, Florida. The guy who made him work.

And which one said the comment I highlighted?

Neither. It was the US Supreme Court.

Is the person who said it a judge?

That's generally how Supreme Court decisions are written.

I'm trying to get context here. Work with me.

You could just read the thing:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/240/328.html

 

[shanek]

And then there's Arver v. U.S.:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=366

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.

Yep...all they had was argument by incredulity. That's it.

And people wonder why I'm not a fan of the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution...

 

[Tony]

1916.



Some guy who was forced to work on a bridge in Florida.



Sheriff of Columbia County, Florida. The guy who made him work.



Neither. It was the US Supreme Court.



That's generally how Supreme Court decisions are written.



You could just read the thing:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/240/328.html

I read it, thanks.


All I have to say is that a person in power (the judge in this case) who would defend such a "law" should be shot.

 

[Tmy]

How big was our militray during Nam?? Why did we draft then? What makes now/Iraq and different?

 

[shanek]

All I have to say is that a person in power (the judge in this case) who would defend such a "law" should be shot.

After a fair and speedy trial by jury, of course.

 

[Otther]

And people wonder why I'm not a fan of the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution...

And you'd prefer which set of dimits instead? Those elected at the district, state, or national level? The constitution must be able to adapt, and the USSC seems to me to be the best we're gonna get.

 

[shanek]

And you'd prefer which set of dimits instead?

There was never any single authority meant to "interpret" the Constitution or be the final word on what it said. Congress, the President, the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the voters, the juries, ALL of them were thought to have the capacity to read the Constitution, understand what it says, and act to stop anything that is in abeyance with the Constitution. At any point along the way, if even one of them determines that a law or an action is unconstitutional, it stops right then and there.

And the only way the Constitution should "adapt" is by amending it.

 

[merphie]

There was never any single authority meant to "interpret" the Constitution or be the final word on what it said. Congress, the President, the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the voters, the juries, ALL of them were thought to have the capacity to read the Constitution, understand what it says, and act to stop anything that is in abeyance with the Constitution. At any point along the way, if even one of them determines that a law or an action is unconstitutional, it stops right then and there.

And the only way the Constitution should "adapt" is by amending it.

The supreme court is not the last word. You can call a constitutional convention.