Drafting legislation
Some idiot wants to reinstate the draft. This prompted a discussion of whether or not the draft is constitutional based on the 13th amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.
Just thinking but Congress can call forth the militia. And:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And there’s the second amendment and all of that. Thoughts? Or am I just full of it?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
That’s similar to my argument on the original thread. To the extent the “militia” described in the Constitution includes roughly the same people as it does for purposes of the statute you quoted, it’s clear that the original Constitution allowed a draft, and the only question is whether the 13th Amendment was intended to change that result. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that it was, given the dearth of proto-Randroids decrying the North’s hypocrisy in fighting slavery with slavery during the Civil War.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
My understanding is that it’s one of Congresses powers to be able to raise an army and navy, and that’s long been understood to include conscripting people into service and/or calling state militias into federal service. Like jury duty, it’s one of those things that’s necessarily for the health and preservation of the republic.
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.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Drafting people to fight a voluntary, unnecessary war would be a hard sell, but it’s not a Constitutional problem.
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.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:40 pm
If you get a foot in the door, put the other one in his ass for this bit of stupid.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Put me down for wanting a real draft, not a politically motivated scare tactic.
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.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
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” , 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.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Rust: Where will the strillion dollars a year that’ll cost come from?
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.)
November 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Looks like the links to the u.S. Constitution did not work. I’ll try again.
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.
November 21st, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I am against conscription. As a former soldier I can say without reservation that I would definately have been against serving with someone who was compelled to be there.
As for the constitutional question, it may well be legal. I don’t know. It probably would be if our armed forces were organized something more like the Swiss model. That is probably the closest possible modern example of what the founding fathers would have approved of in a militia.