The draft, a common sense solution.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

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.

Given a scenerio where the nation were at risk of being conquered, then people would sign up to fight, if they thought their nation were worth fighting for. I don't think that even in that instance we need a draft.

 

[shanek]

As the legislative body, Congress do of course have the power to repeal laws(*) for whatever reason they see fit - including that they think the law is unconstitutional. However, that's not the same as having the power to determine if the law actually is unconstitutional or not.

For purposes of legislation, they can make such a determination, just as the Supreme Court can make such a determination for judicial purposes.

A newspaper-editor has the power to refrain from printing an article he deems to be libelous - but it doesn't follow that he has the legal power to determine if the article actually is libelous or not.

Hardly the same thing. Congress can STRIKE DOWN THE LAW, and then it is NO LAW, just as if the Supreme Court struck it down. The only difference I'm aware of is that the Supreme Court can nullify all convictions from the time the law passed; but Congress could do that with legislation or the President could do that with his power to pardon.

In the same way as the police operate versus the courts: By executing the law, as they understand it, and then presenting their case to a court to decide if they were correct or not.

The President testifies before the Supreme Court in constitutional cases? The judicial branch can make the President enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled isn't?

 

[Leif Roar]

For purposes of legislation, they can make such a determination, just as the Supreme Court can make such a determination for judicial purposes.



Hardly the same thing. Congress can STRIKE DOWN THE LAW, and then it is NO LAW, just as if the Supreme Court struck it down. The only difference I'm aware of is that the Supreme Court can nullify all convictions from the time the law passed; but Congress could do that with legislation or the President could do that with his power to pardon.

However, the decision by Congress carries no legal weight concerning the constitonality of the law. Legally speaking, Congress' reason for striking down the law is immaterial. The same law might be enacted at a later time without any problems at all.

The President testifies before the Supreme Court in constitutional cases? The judicial branch can make the President enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled isn't?

No, but the Supreme Court has the power to state that the president's enforcement is in violation of the constitution. This would then define the president's actions in the case as illegal.

I don't know if the judicial branch might also sentence the president over such issues (I would guess that it can, but that's just guesswork) or if it would take an impeachment to remove the president from his position first. However, even if they did sentence him, they have no power to carry out that sentence, as that power belongs to the executive branch.

The point is, that once a president's actions has been found illegal by the Supreme Court, he no longer has any legal authority to act thusly. He might still have the power to do so, but so does a tyrant.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

Your taxes (or, in this case, the deficit), are paying either way. Why not cut out the middleman and his 50% cut.

 

[billydkid]

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.

If the military restricted itself to only fighting just wars there would never be insufficient numbers or quality of volunteers.

 

[shanek]

However, the decision by Congress carries no legal weight concerning the constitonality of the law.

"Legal weight" implies you're talking about the judicial branch, which means you're engaging in circular logic.

Legally speaking, Congress' reason for striking down the law is immaterial. The same law might be enacted at a later time without any problems at all.

And a later Supreme Court can overturn the verdict of a previous Supreme Court. Your point?

No, but the Supreme Court has the power to state that the president's enforcement is in violation of the constitution.

They also have the power to state that the sky is green. So what?

I don't know if the judicial branch might also sentence the president over such issues (I would guess that it can, but that's just guesswork)

No, it can't. He has to be removed from or otherwise leave office first.

The point is, that once a president's actions has been found illegal by the Supreme Court, he no longer has any legal authority to act thusly. He might still have the power to do so, but so does a tyrant.

The Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to tell the President what to do. Separation of powers. They judge, they do not execute. Their power lies in the fact that the executive depends on the judicial for enforcement under due process. They can stop him there, but that's that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Given a scenerio where the nation were at risk of being conquered, then people would sign up to fight, if they thought their nation were worth fighting for. I don't think that even in that instance we need a draft.

I think that would be the most likely case...but I like to have all the bases covered. Unlikely things sometimes pop up and surprise you.

 

[Suddenly]

Does jury duty violate the 13th Amendment?

Bingo.

This is what I was thinking but I couldn't phrase it quite right as I didn't think of jury duty as a replacement.

Jury duty is more or less the same thing as a draft as far as a person being compelled to give up his or her time to perform a civic duty, with jury duty (usually) being to a much lesser degree of course.

Both are mandatory under color of law, and both involve showing up a performing a service. Any differences are a matter of degree as far as I can tell.

Is any act compelled by color of law (not including as a result of a criminal conviction) in violation of the 13th amendment? It goes beyond jury duty to being subpoenaed to testify as a witness in a court of law, to even taxation if a person is compelled to ever fill out a form.

 

[Tony]

Bingo.

This is what I was thinking but I couldn't phrase it quite right as I didn't think of jury duty as a replacement.

Jury duty is more or less the same thing as a draft as far as a person being compelled to give up his or her time to perform a civic duty, with jury duty (usually) being to a much lesser degree of course.

Both are mandatory under color of law, and both involve showing up a performing a service. Any differences are a matter of degree as far as I can tell.

I thought jury duty was conditional.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Is any act compelled by color of law (not including as a result of a criminal conviction) in violation of the 13th amendment? It goes beyond jury duty to being subpoenaed to testify as a witness in a court of law, to even taxation if a person is compelled to ever fill out a form.

Lol. It could be reduced to absurdity: being required to follow the law as a violation of the 13th Amendment.

 

[Suddenly]

I thought jury duty was conditional.

So's the draft. It isn't voluntary though. In a lot of places there may be lax enforcement, and people let off for any good reason, but that doesn't change the core calculus that it is an obligation with the force of law. There could be lax enforcement and liberal exceptions for a draft as well...

 

[Tony]

So's the draft. It isn't voluntary though. In a lot of places there may be lax enforcement, and people let off for any good reason, but that doesn't change the core calculus that it is an obligation with the force of law. There could be lax enforcement and liberal exceptions for a draft as well...

How is the draft conditional?

 

[Suddenly]

How is the draft conditional?

What I am talking about is that both have eligibility requirements.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What I am talking about is that both have eligibility requirements.

Male, above and below certain ages, having a particular degree of physical fitness, etc.

I know the military isn't supposed to enlist convicted criminals (felons only? Not sure) in the ordinary way, but could they be drafted? It's hard to argue against that, because then there would be a particularly antisocial way of avoiding a draft!


(And I'd like to state that while I wouldn't be particularly eager to be drafted, I'm mortally insulted that under the current selection criteria I'm too old. Bah! I'm under 30! And that's over the hill?)

 

[Tony]

What I am talking about is that both have eligibility requirements.

Well, that's not really what I'm talking about. For example, to be required to serve in a jury, you have to be registered to vote (atleast you do in these parts). If you don't vote, you don't serve on the jury. IIRC, no such condition exists with the draft.

 

[Suddenly]

Well, that's not really what I'm talking about. For example, to be required to serve in a jury, you have to be registered to vote (atleast you do in these parts). If you don't vote, you don't serve on the jury. IIRC, no such condition exists with the draft.

Umm.. No, that is just the way some jurisdictions choose jurors, by voter rolls.

I have serious doubts that there is an actual law in any jurisdiction holding that those who do not vote are ineligible for jury service given that this give rise to an argument by anyone convicted in that jurisdiction that their right to a jury of there peers was unduly infringed upon. Even if there were, it is an eligibility requirement that does nothing to change the fact that a person is being forced to perform an act under force of law.

 

[Tony]

Even if there were, it is an eligibility requirement that does nothing to change the fact that a person is being forced to perform an act under force of law.

There's still a huge and extremely relevant distinction. Jury duty does not entail dying.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There's still a huge and extremely relevant distinction. Jury duty does not entail dying.

Depends on the sort of trial. My mother didn't register during the two years we lived in New Jersey because they were having jury selections for some Mafia trials. They found a headless corpse the day we moved into town. Ah, I miss New Jersey.

 

[Suddenly]

There's still a huge and extremely relevant distinction. Jury duty does not entail dying.

Just a matter of degree as to the magnitude of the duty.


Feel free to come up with a new set of criteria, but at this point it appears the test is whether you are being forced to do something.

You are identifying a criteria that is very vague and not well stated. Being drafted does not mean you will die, so your implication above is factually wrong from the start. Even if we consider the risk of death, we have a problem in that it is possible to be a slave or enter into involuntary servitude with no more a chance of death than jury duty, like if I force you into involuntary servitude to be my typist for this week because my secretary is out with the flu....

 

[Tony]

Just a matter of degree as to the magnitude of the duty.


Feel free to come up with a new set of criteria, but at this point it appears the test is whether you are being forced to do something.

You are identifying a criteria that is very vague and not well stated. Being drafted does not mean you will die, so your implication above is factually wrong from the start. Even if we consider the risk of death, we have a problem in that it is possible to be a slave or enter into involuntary servitude with no more a chance of death than jury duty, like if I force you into involuntary servitude to be my typist for this week because my secretary is out with the flu....

Does this mean the draft and involuntary servitude is ok with you?