Not everyone thought the federal government had the authority to institute a draft. See Daniel Webster’s speech before congress — December, 1814.

As to the constitutional authority to “raise an army” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12), I do believe the word “raise” should be given a simialar interpretation to what it has in the phrase “to raise money for a charity”. In the later phrase the use of the word does not imply that theft would be acceptable and in the former it does not imply that conscription is acceptable.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, gives authority to “…lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence, …”. Sure seems to imply that people servering in the Army should be paid — and Clause 12 restricts any such appropriations to at most two years. Such a limitation wouldn’t have much effect if you could just not pay the soldiers and force them to stay around anyway (i.e., conscription).

As to “calling up the militia”, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 restricts that to only three expicitly defined purposes: “… to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”. So while that might serve to stop the invasion by our neighbors to the south, it won’t do much for “foreign adventures” and hence is unlikely to be invoked by any of those weasels in congress.

We don’t need a “shared national experience” based on doing whatever the State says for two years, whether the programs are “worthwhile” or not – and I assure you, most people straight out of high school are not going to feel that the programs you (or I) like are “worthwhile” enough to be anything less than mutinously unhappy about it.

(If those programs are really worthwhile and can’t get enough people now, that can be solved by giving them money to hire people. That way the people working at them will be motivated and happy, rather than sullen and bitter teen conscripts doing just enough to avoid jail for Not Obeying The State’s Command. And it’ll probably be cheaper than paying and supporting universal conscription anyway.)

We don’t need a draft, let alone mandatory service for everyone, to build the military back up. Money will suffice for that. (And the military establishment seems unanimous in decrying the quality of drafted troops – conscripts aren’t motivated or self-selected in a useful way. Volunteers are good.)

As to the constitutional authority to “raise an army” , I do believe the word “raise” should be given a simialar interpretation to what it has in the phrase “to raise money for a charity”. In the later phrase the use of the word does not imply that theft would be acceptable and in the former it does not imply that conscription is acceptable.

gives authority to “…lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence, …”. Sure seems to imply that people servering in the Army should be paid — and Clause 12 restricts any such appropriations to at most two years. Such a limitation wouldn’t have much effect if you could just not pay the soldiers and force them to stay around anyway (i.e., conscription).

As to “calling up the militia”, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 restricts that to only three expicitly defined purposes: “… to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”. So while that might serve to stop the invasion by our neighbors to the south, it won’t do much for “foreign adventures” and hence is unlikely to be invoked by any of those weasels in congress.

A draft would be a good thing to have. Two years, straight out of high school. No exemptions.

We could secure our borders, ports and airports.

We could rebuild our military into a viable force again, instead of using Guard and Reserves in roles they shouldn’t play.

We could properly staff many worthwhile programs suffering from manpower shortages.

We’d have a shared national experience, something we’re sorely missing.

Of course, it won’t happen. Even the ones calling for a draft aren’t doing it for the right reasons. All they are doing is trying to scare people.

I don’t think anyone in Washington really want border security, they’re too busy importing the new working class.

They don’t want a bigger military, they’d rather buy another “ohhh, shiney” weapons system designed to make their careers better while pretending it will take the place of soldiers.

Those programs? Most likey some sort of writeoff, or a “look, we care!” deal that is all talk and no action.

Shared national experience? Not on your life. The last thing the folks in Washington want is for the people to be of one mind about anything. No money to be made from it, no power to be gained.

I used to have dealings with Rangel and his people. He’s one of the shrewdest people I’ve ever met. Actually, now that the Dems have taken the house, I’ll be dealing with him again if I can get a foot in his door.

But Rangel is an idiot. We could have a larger military if Congress were willing to pay for it, as we had a much much larger all volunteer force during the Cold War. We don’t need a draft, and the military isn’t calling for one. But under some, probably dire in this day in age, circumstances, a draft is a necessary evil.