Amendment 13 And A Military Draft

[Robo]

Quote Amendment 13: 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. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.


I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.


The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.


Why am I wrong?

[donttread]

Quote Amendment 13: 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. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.


I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.


The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.


Why am I wrong?

You're not but the court has long been a servant of the parties rather than the Constitution . Perhaps longer than any of us knew. Draft is slavery. Not to mention unecessary. If you have to enslave people to fight then you don't need to be in that fight. If we are invaded you would need no draft. Compeling one sex to register for SS and not the other was horrible "on it's face" sexism. But the government can break it's own rules. Ever know one of those people who held others to higher standard that he did himself? If so did you have any respect for him whatsoever?

[Newpublius]

I abhor the draft but those who suggest it violates XIII Amendment would be hard pressed to say the original intent was to preckude a draft. I mean, in all sincerity you can't really abolish chattel slavery on one hand while continuing to draft peopke that they meant to abolish the draft. They didn't so intend and the totality of the circumstances makes it clear they didn't.

[Cletus]

There are both legitimate pros and cons to a draft.

If I had to examine it, I would probably say there are more pros than cons.

[Robo]

I abhor the draft but those who suggest it violates XIII Amendment would be hard pressed to say the original intent was to preckude a draft. I mean, in all sincerity you can't really abolish chattel slavery on one hand while continuing to draft peopke that they meant to abolish the draft. They didn't so intend and the totality of the circumstances makes it clear they didn't.

If amendment 13 isn't intended to end the draft, then it should have made that exception within its text, or an amendment should have been passed or should still be passed to clarify the contradiction and oh so apparent constitutional violation constructed by amendment 13 and the draft, don't you think?

[Robo]

There are both legitimate pros and cons to a draft.

If I had to examine it, I would probably say there are more pros than cons.

Why not prove your theory and examine it and post your results?

[birddog]

I suppose some of us that were drafted and served honorably, we are less sympathetic to those opposed to the draft.

[The Xl]

I suppose some of us that were drafted and served honorably, we are less sympathetic to those opposed to the draft.

Not everybody is content with being fodder for psychopathic politicians and for the military industrial complex.

[Cletus]

Why not prove your theory and examine it and post your results?

Mainly because I am not really all that interested. However, having spent a long time in the Army and having served with pretty significant number of draftees (No, I was not drafted), some things come immediately to mind.

Pros:
A draft allows the military to meet the manpower requirements it needs to carry out the mission.
A draft brings people from all walks of life into the military. They bring with them their skills, knowledge and experience. This is something that is often overlooked when discussing the draft, but it is a very big "pro".
A draft helps build the Founders' idea of a "well regulated militia"... a populace trained in the use of arms, possessing basic military skills.

Cons:
A draft disrupts the lives of people who don't want to be in the military and some of them bring a negative attitude with them, although that is generally drilled out of them pretty quickly.

[Cletus]

Not everybody is content with being fodder for psychopathic politicians and for the military industrial complex.

Yeah, I have heard a lot of cowards use that excuse over the years.

I am not suggesting anything... just saying it is a common refrain used by those who want to avoid service to their country.

[Cletus]

I suppose some of us that were drafted and served honorably, we are less sympathetic to those opposed to the draft.

The draft, whether you like it or not, did much to develop kids into men.

[Ethereal]

The state's authority is based on its ability to promote illusions and promoting such illusions requires them to pervert language and truth.

Orwell spoke to this extensively in Animal Farm and 1984.

WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

One of the biggest illusions promoted by the state is that we're not its slaves. They use sophistry like "tacit consent" and "representative democracy" to gloss over the ugly reality of our involuntary servitude. But upon further examination, these concepts fall apart almost instantly.

[Ethereal]

Yeah, I have heard a lot of cowards use that excuse over the years.

I am not suggesting anything... just saying it is a common refrain used by those who want to avoid service to their country.

You are confusing service to the "country" with service to the state. A common mistake.

[Ethereal]

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
--Thomas Paine

[The Xl]

Yeah, I have heard a lot of cowards use that excuse over the years.

I am not suggesting anything... just saying it is a common refrain used by those who want to avoid service to their country.

It must also be cowardly to not jump in open traffic. What absolutely absurd logic.

[The Xl]

You are confusing service to the "country" with service to the state. A common mistake.

The state is God. Even cons who claim to be for small government still parrot that horse manure.

[The Xl]

The draft, whether you like it or not, did much to develop kids into men.

That must be not counting the ones that died kids, or went on to be homeless or chronically injured because of physical or mental trauma and injury. If you and others want to died and hurt yourselves so others can profit and for no other reason, be my guest, but leave the more intelligent, peaceful people who want nothing to do with it out of it.

[Peter1469]

I don't see how a draft would help the US at this point. I am not convinced that a draft force would be adaptable to our modern warfare.

[donttread]

I abhor the draft but those who suggest it violates XIII Amendment would be hard pressed to say the original intent was to preckude a draft. I mean, in all sincerity you can't really abolish chattel slavery on one hand while continuing to draft peopke that they meant to abolish the draft. They didn't so intend and the totality of the circumstances makes it clear they didn't.


OK, but it still goes against all of our las, beliefs , etc. It's not like the Constitutionally reaffirmed the draft either. Pursuit of happiness.

[Cletus]

You are confusing service to the "country" with service to the state. A common mistake.

No, I am really not.

[Cletus]

That must be not counting the ones that died kids, or went on to be homeless or chronically injured because of physical or mental trauma and injury. If you and others want to died and hurt yourselves so others can profit and for no other reason, be my guest, but leave the more intelligent, peaceful people who want nothing to do with it out of it.


Keep telling yourself whatever lets you sleep better at night.

Some answer the call. Others hide and hope someone will answer for them.

Draftees answered the call.

[Cletus]

I don't see how a draft would help the US at this point. I am not convinced that a draft force would be adaptable to our modern warfare.

I am not in favor of a draft, but I see no reason it would not adaptable to modern warfare.

[Cletus]

It must also be cowardly to not jump in open traffic. What absolutely absurd logic.

There really is no comparison between the two, but believe whatever makes you feel better.

[nic34]

Ending conscription is long overdue. At very least it should be means tested, or left to the families of the politicians that advocate new wars.

[Peter1469]

I am not in favor of a draft, but I see no reason it would not adaptable to modern warfare.


Perhaps. I do think that we could not afford it.

[donttread]

I suppose some of us that were drafted and served honorably, we are less sympathetic to those opposed to the draft.


Sure you were enslaved so should be others right?

[donttread]

The draft, whether you like it or not, did much to develop kids into men.

You're fucking kidding , right?

[Cletus]

You're fucking kidding , right?

Why would I be?

I made a statement with which many draftees would agree.

[donttread]

Keep telling yourself whatever lets you sleep better at night.

Some answer the call. Others hide and hope someone will answer for them.

Draftees answered the call.


Th "call " to what? Exxon glory? Haliburton proifs for others? Re-elections ? See if we were invaded we wouldn't need a draft, even old fuckers like me would be out there with our carbines trying to take one of then with us. If our allies were invaded you probably wouldn't need a draft.
In fact these days "needing a draft" would be a good sign that you don't need to be in that war

[Cletus]

Okay.

It changes nothing, but okay.

[Newpublius]

I don't see how a draft would help the US at this point. I am not convinced that a draft force would be adaptable to our modern warfare.

On 9/11 a significant percentage of the FDNY was engaged and the call went out to fire departments tbroughout the tri-state area (and beyond I might add), as everybody was going downtown what would happen if there was a fire in Queens?

Now these suburban units covering holes FDNY necessarily had to leave open likely weren't the best fit, but they were still there capable of makong some type of response.

I don't see a draft sticking front line soldiers on D-Day trying to make sense of a very complex modern battlefield. I do see them potentially in supoort roles though.

[Cletus]

I don't see a draft sticking front line soldiers on D-Day trying to make sense of a very complex modern battlefield. I do see them potentially in supoort roles though.

The average soldier doesn't need to make sense of a complex modern battlefield. He needs to make sense of what is going on a few hundred meters around him. That is the way it has always been.

For some reason, people seem to believe that draftees are incapable of understanding the same things a volunteer can understand. I don't get that.

[Ethereal]

No, I am really not.

The draft is a state institution. To claim that avoidance of the draft constitutes an unwillingness to serve one's country necessarily implies that there is no distinction between the state and the country.

[Robo]

The draft, whether you like it or not, did much to develop kids into men.

Men without lives limbs or mental stability oh so often.

[donttread]

The draft is a state institution. To claim that avoidance of the draft constitutes an unwillingness to serve one's country necessarily implies that there is no distinction between the state and the country.


Not to mention implying that killing and dying is the only way to serve one's country

[Robo]

Mainly because I am not really all that interested. However, having spent a long time in the Army and having served with pretty significant number of draftees (No, I was not drafted), some things come immediately to mind.

Pros:
A draft allows the military to meet the manpower requirements it needs to carry out the mission.

What if the mission is Vietnam? Where's the evidence that volunteers can't and wont meet the demands for credible and justifiable wars that are actually declared by the Congress like the Constitution requires?

A draft brings people from all walks of life into the military. They bring with them their skills, knowledge and experience. This is something that is often overlooked when discussing the draft, but it is a very big "pro".

Volunteers don't have skills, knowledge and experience and come from all walks of life?

A draft helps build the Founders' idea of a "well regulated militia"... a populace trained in the use of arms, possessing basic military skills.

Which founders promoted military conscription? Militias are voluntary armed services.

[Robo]

Yeah, I have heard a lot of cowards use that excuse over the years.

I am not suggesting anything... just saying it is a common refrain used by those who want to avoid service to their country.

Or being conscripted against their will into unnecessary, undeclared and unconstitutional wars and insane nation building and policing the globe.

[Robo]

Keep telling yourself whatever lets you sleep better at night.

Some answer the call. Others hide and hope someone will answer for them.

Draftees answered the call.

Draftees are scared to death of going to jail. Volunteers are the real heroes that answer the calls even though they sooooo often are brainwashed by the militarist authoritarian rhetoric and are often ignorant of the actual constitutional authorities for wars.

[Cthulhu]

Yeah, I have heard a lot of cowards use that excuse over the years.

I am not suggesting anything... just saying it is a common refrain used by those who want to avoid service to their country.
It's also said by those who wonder - legitimately so, if their country or government is worth serving.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Robo]

I am not in favor of a draft, but I see no reason it would not adaptable to modern warfare.

What about its adaptability to the Constitution and congressionally undeclared wars whereby America was never attacked?

[Cthulhu]

Ending conscription is long overdue. At very least it should be means tested, or left to the families of the politicians that advocate new wars.
I think all federal politicians should have to fight whatever wars are being fought the squad infantry echelon for as long as these wars continue.

We'd be an awesome country then.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[nic34]

I think all federal politicians should have to fight whatever wars are being fought the squad infantry echelon for as long as these wars continue.

We'd be an awesome country then.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Yes, at the very least.

[Robo]

Let the Kings and princes put on their armor and lead the troops.

[ripmeister]

Let the Kings and princes put on their armor and lead the troops.
"I ain't no senators son."

[donttread]

[QUOTE=Robo;2002648]What if the mission is Vietnam? Where's the evidence that volunteers can't and wont meet the demands for credible and justifiable wars that are actually declared by the Congress like the Constitution requires?


Volunteers don't have skills, knowledge and experience and come from all walks of life?


Which founders promoted military conscription? Militias are voluntary armed services.[/QUOTE

How was Nam a "credible and justifyable war? Did you miss the 60's?

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Robo;2002648]What if the mission is Vietnam? Where's the evidence that volunteers can't and wont meet the demands for credible and justifiable wars that are actually declared by the Congress like the Constitution requires?


Volunteers don't have skills, knowledge and experience and come from all walks of life?


Which founders promoted military conscription? Militias are voluntary armed services.[/QUOTE

How was Nam a "credible and justifyable war? Did you miss the 60's?
It was justified using the Containment policy. Unfortunately it was a misapplication of that policy.

[Tahuyaman]

There are both legitimate pros and cons to a draft.

If I had to examine it, I would probably say there are more pros than cons.. I would say the cons outweigh the benefits.

We don't need a military filled with people who don't want to be there. People who are there based on their free will have a tendency to perform better than those who are there because they had no choice.

[donttread]

Let the Kings and princes put on their armor and lead the troops.


Never saw Bush on a front line or OBL with a bomb strapped to his chest did you. In fact the closest thing we saw to big time leadership on the front lines was when Cheny got drunk and shot his lawyer! But General Lee was often present during battles. I think that if it's important enough to send people in to die the leaders should be right there with them. Then non military solutions would increase I'll bet

[donttread]

. I would say the cons outweigh the benefits.

We don't need a military filled with people who don't want to be there. People who are there based on their free will have a tendency to perform better than those who are there because they had no choice.

If we compel people to fight in wars half way around the world , what exactly would they be fighting for? Certainly not "freedom".

[MisterVeritis]

The state is God. Even cons who claim to be for small government still parrot that horse manure.
Not small government.

Limited government. If you don't want the Federal government to have the ability to draw upon the nation's people then write an amendment and pass it.

[Mister D]

Never saw Bush on a front line or OBL with a bomb strapped to his chest did you. In fact the closest thing we saw to big time leadership on the front lines was when Cheny got drunk and shot his lawyer! But General Lee was often present during battles. I think that if it's important enough to send people in to die the leaders should be right there with them. Then non military solutions would increase I'll bet
The days of "heroic" leadership are long over and that's not because "megacorps" or the "donkephant" but because the sheer scale of warfare in the modern age made that style of leadership obsolete.

[MisterVeritis]

The days of "heroic" leadership are long over and that's not because "megacorps" or the "donkephant" but because the sheer scale of warfare in the modern age made that style of leadership obsolete.
We can disagree. You are describing war above the platoon level. It has been said "We cannot manage men to their deaths. We must lead them there." A good company commander will be at the point of decision. I had a Cav Squadron commander (went on to 4 stars) who always seemed to know where he was most needed. He placed himself, and a very small tactical command post, as near as he could to the Troop Commander who needed him the most.

[Tahuyaman]

Never saw Bush on a front line or OBL with a bomb strapped to his chest did you. In fact the closest thing we saw to big time leadership on the front lines was when Cheny got drunk and shot his lawyer! But General Lee was often present during battles. I think that if it's important enough to send people in to die the leaders should be right there with them. Then non military solutions would increase I'll bet

You are comparing a president to a general? Was FDR right along side General Patton in North Africa and Europe?

[Mister D]

We can disagree. You are describing war above the platoon level. It has been said "We cannot manage men to their deaths. We must lead them there." A good company commander will be at the point of decision. I had a Cav Squadron commander (went on to 4 stars) who always seemed to know where he was most needed. He placed himself, and a very small tactical command post, as near as he could to the Troop Commander who needed him the most.
I don't disagree but Patton, let alone Eisenhower, wasn't driving a tank into combat. That style of command at the levels we're talking about ended a very long time ago.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't disagree but Patton, let alone Eisenhower, wasn't driving a tank into combat. That style of command at the levels we're talking about ended a very long time ago.

Patton sometimes guided his units from the front lines or a CP on the actual battlefield.

I just find find it odd that someone would be critical of president Bush because he did not lead a unit into battle in Iraq. That argument is probably made by someone who claims Obama killed Bin Laden.

[Mister D]

Patton sometimes guided his units from the front lines or a CP on the actual battlefield.

I just find find it odd that someone would be critical of president Bush because he did not lead a unit into battle in Iraq. That argument is probably made by someone who claims Obama killed Bin Laden.
It was extremely rare, if it happened at all, for someone at Patton's level to 'lead from the front' as they say. The scale of modern warfare is simply too large to permit that. Mr. V points out that this is still very common, indeed crucial, for junior leadership and I think that's a good point to make. I don't want to be misunderstood. We're talking about senior levels of command. It is irresponsible and downright stupid for senior officers to expose themselves like that.

Dontread is just throwing out an old canard that if those who who give the orders were exposed to death there would be less war.

[Tahuyaman]

It was extremely rare, if it happened at all, for someone at Patton's level to 'lead from the front' as they say. The scale of modern warfare is simply too large to permit that. Mr. V points out that this is still very common, indeed crucial, for junior leadership and I think that's a good point to make. I don't want to be misunderstood. We're talking about senior levels of command. It is irresponsible and downright stupid for senior officers to expose themselves like that.

Dontread is just throwing out an old canard that if those who who give the orders were exposed to death there would be less war.


Patton wasn't a conventional leader.