The draft, a common sense solution.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

A horrible thing, the draft. Makes for a bad army. There really is no good reason for it.

There is an attempt to get it started from time to time. I believe the thinking is that if politicians had their own kids drafted into the army, they would be less likely to run off to war. Experience has shown us that they will always find a way to make their own children exempt from the laws they create, if they want to.

My solution would be to bump up combat pay to match civilian contractors. Military retention and recruiting becomes far less of a problem, after all, they still have civillian contractors over there, even with the beheadings. War suddenly becomes far more expensive, solving the problem of rushing into war.

The only problem I see with paying military in combat 3-4 times what they're getting now, is that some jackass will decide to just send 1/3 to 1/4th the number of people to save money.

 

[shanek]

Still waiting for someone to explain how a draft doesn't violate the 13th Amendment's abolition of involuntary servitude. Not holding my breath, though...

 

[Cleon]

Still waiting for someone to explain how a draft doesn't violate the 13th Amendment's abolition of involuntary servitude. Not holding my breath, though...

Because involuntary servitude is dragging someone, against their will, to do work for you. A draft is calling on someone to Serve Their Country.

Come on, man, keep up.

 

[aerocontrols]

My solution would be to bump up combat pay to match civilian contractors. Military retention and recruiting becomes far less of a problem, after all, they still have civillian contractors over there, even with the beheadings. War suddenly becomes far more expensive, solving the problem of rushing into war.

A small increase in base pay and benefits would result in more recruiting if all one wants is a larger army.

 

[TragicMonkey]

They might boost the numbers a bit if they stopped kicking people out of the military for preferring their own gender in romantic encounters. Yeah, who needs qualified Arabic translators these days?

 

[Leif Roar]

Still waiting for someone to explain how a draft doesn't violate the 13th Amendment's abolition of involuntary servitude. Not holding my breath, though...

Because the Supreme Court has found that the ammendment is not applicable to that situation: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html

 

[TragicMonkey]

Because the Supreme Court has found that the ammendment is not applicable to that situation: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html

During the Vietnam War (an undeclared war) the Court,
upholding a conviction for burning a draft card, declared that the power
to classify and conscript manpower for military service was ``beyond
question.'' United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).

I agree that the power to conscript military recruits is necessary for any nation...but it disturbs me that the Supreme Court would simply rule "it's beyond question". I guess my skeptical nature doesn't like the idea of anything being "beyond question".*



*I also have said nasty things about Calpurnia, who's reputation was supposed to be "beyond reproach". Whore!

 

[Tony]

Because the Supreme Court has found that the ammendment is not applicable to that situation: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html

F### the Supreme Court. I can read and think for myself:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

It's pretty damn clear.

 

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

A small increase in base pay and benefits would result in more recruiting if all one wants is a larger army.

While I think the base pay should be livable, and it isn't in many cases, I wouldn't go beyond that. Military, police, they shouldn't have such a high standard of living that they are willing to turn on the american people to preserve it. I do like the idea of people serving for noble reasons, greed not being one of them. The situation as it is now, when the guy standing next to you got out of the military a couple of years ago and is earning 3 times your pay, and is in the exact same amount of danger as you are, it is stupid to stay in the military.

 

[Leif Roar]

F### the Supreme Court. I can read and think for myself:

As far as I know, the US constitution was always ment as a legal document that should be interpreted by a court, rather than being directly interpreted by lay-men.

While you might of course disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, the Court's interpretation of the constitution is, by definition, the correct one.

It's pretty damn clear.

So's this:

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ...

 

[shanek]

Because the Supreme Court has found that the ammendment is not applicable to that situation: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html

Yyyyyyeah. Arver v. United States. Here's what they said:

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.

They had no clue! They wanted to rule that way, so they did. It was one big argument fron incredulity. They couldn't see how they might have wanted to limit a draft, even though at the time of the amendment's passing there was only ONE time in American history where a draft was issued, and it resulted in a riot!

No, sorry, there is no satisfactory explanation here.

(And where, exactly, does the Constitution say that a citizen has the "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"?)

 

[shanek]

I agree that the power to conscript military recruits is necessary for any nation.

Why?

 

[shanek]

As far as I know, the US constitution was always ment as a legal document that should be interpreted by a court, rather than being directly interpreted by lay-men.

Wrong. The courts are inferior to the Constitution. We, the people, ordained and established the Constitution, so we, the people, are the ultimate arbiters of what it means.

While you might of course disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, the Court's interpretation of the constitution is, by definition, the correct one.

And where, in the Constitution, is this defined thus?

So's this:

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ...

Yes...arising UNDER the Constitution. Reading is fundamental...

 

[Tony]

As far as I know, the US constitution was always ment as a legal document that should be interpreted by a court, rather than being directly interpreted by lay-men.

While you might of course disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, the Court's interpretation of the constitution is, by definition, the correct one.

Evidence?

So's this:

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ...

It is clear, and no where in there does it say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is and isn't constitutional.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why?

Out of practicality. A nation that cannot defend itself risks being conquered, and it's conceivable that at times a volunteer military might not be sufficient in numbers to maintain adequate defense. The nation must survive before it can worry about justice.

If given the power, of course, I would ensure that a draft only occured to defend the nation, not attack another. Although frequently we hear that the only defense is an offense, which is a debatable point. I would take convincing...but then, I'm fairly skeptical about things.

 

[Suddenly]

And where, in the Constitution, is this defined thus?

Maybe in the same place where it is says all that stuff about the "common law" that you tend to bring up?


Just out of curiousity shane, what is your stance on names being in all capital letters?

 

[Leif Roar]

Wrong. The courts are inferior to the Constitution. We, the people, ordained and established the Constitution, so we, the people, are the ultimate arbiters of what it means.

And the mechanism that was choosen for doing so was the Supreme Court.

And where, in the Constitution, is this defined thus?

It becomes the case as the Supreme Court is given supreme judicial power. That means nobody (but the Supreme Court itself) has the right or power to overrule a Supreme Court decision, which by definition makes that decision correct.

Yes...arising UNDER the Constitution. Reading is fundamental...

Since the Supreme Court has, among other things, to rule on the constitutionality of a case, it follows implicitly that the Supreme Court must interpret the meaning of the constitution. No other body is given this power, which results in the Supreme Court being the only body that has been given such.

Mind, I'm a lay-man, and this is my lay-man's understanding of the matters.

 

[Suddenly]

Evidence?



It is clear, and no where in there does it say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is and isn't constitutional.

Except that such a power is included in the judical power.

Follow along with me:

1) The judicial power is the power to interpret the generally stated law to a particular situation.

2) Part of #1 is deciding when two laws contradict each other, which one wins out.

3) Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the judicial power includes deciding when the Constitution and another law conflict. When they do, the Constitution is the one that is followed.

4) Thus, the courtd decides whether a statute/order/whatever conflicts with the constitution, sometimes referred to in common lingo as "deciding whether something is constitutional."

5) Since the Supreme court is the highest judicial authority, they are the last judicial word, which is the last word since interpretation of the law is a judicial power.

 

[Leif Roar]

Evidence?



It is clear, and no where in there does it say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is and isn't constitutional.

Err, I have to disagree. By there not being any body or institution that can overrule a decision by the Supreme Court, it is the ultimate authority on what the constitution means.(*)


(*) Of course, the Senate can "overrule" the Supreme Court by amending the constitution, but that's really beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[shanek]

Maybe in the same place where it is says all that stuff about the "common law" that you tend to bring up?

You're free to show where the common law does so, but keep in mind the Constitution trumps common law.

You're also free to show why minds from Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Story disagreed.

Just out of curiousity shane, what is your stance on names being in all capital letters?

Well, SUDDENLY, I'm against it 100%!!! —SHANE