• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supremes To Consider The Military Draft

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmm, sounds like a good thing. Too bad that I am not pro-war. I could almost change my mind.
Ha.

I wonder what they'll do. I think it's hard to get rid of the draft in totality or at least with regards to a war of national defense, and I doubt many will be in favor of getting women in the draft.

I'm no fan of the draft, especially when it comes to foreign wars, but I don't see much movement happening. Hopefully I'm surprised.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You wouldn't be free for very long.

Let's just say fighting has to be done sometimes.
Balderdash!
Don't drink the Kool Aid.

You can't invade even a weak country if the population is against you -- as Vietnam and Afghanistan have shown.
The US has a weak, disorganized country to the South, a weak, friendly country to the North, and on the East and West -- fishes.
Our only enemies are those we created ourselves. Noöne's going to invade us, we're going to tear ourselves apart from within.
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
"Supremes To Consider The Military Draft"

Any word on how Diana Ross feels about all this?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Balderdash!
Don't drink the Kool Aid.

You can't invade even a weak country if the population is against you -- as Vietnam and Afghanistan have shown.
The US has a weak, disorganized country to the South, a weak, friendly country to the North, and on the East and West -- fishes.
Our only enemies are those we created ourselves. Noöne's going to invade us, we're going to tear ourselves apart from within.
There is a danger to that kind of complacency.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Looks straightforward to me.
Perhaps some of them will see it that way.
But I make no predictions about strict constructionists
reading the 13th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary
servitude. Nor do I see the liberals being necessarily
all equal rights for men & women.
Did you by any chance read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution
Interesting information in following link:
Power to Raise and Support an Army: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Okay, I would say that the all male draft is clearly un-Constitutional. But there are multiple sides to any story. Let's look at it from an older male pro-war viewpoint. Here are the benefits. We are far more likely to go to war if the military is mostly men. As an older male I would not be subject to the draft. If it was a serious war there would be a lot of women for us undrafted men to choose from. Hmm, sounds like a good thing. Too bad that I am not pro-war. I could almost change my mind.
That scenario seems less rosy to me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Did you by any chance read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution
I've perused it before...enuf to determine that it authorizes
raising armies, but it doesn't authorize conscription. Some
argue that is implied by tradition. But traditions can change.
And then there's that inconvenient explicit 13th Amendment.
From your link.....
Before the United States entered the first World War, the Court had anticipated the objection that compulsory military service would violate the Thirteenth Amendment and had answered it in the following words: It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

The 13th Amendment was indeed entirely "novel doctrine". This
is typical with any amendment, otherwise why amend it at all?
The court was rationalizing that the amendment meant something
other than what it very clearly & specifically stated.
The link also spoke of traditions & states' actions prior to adopting
the 13th Amendment. But amendments exist for the very purpose
of changing prior laws & traditions.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution is very specific about
this....
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.

Amendments supersede prior law. The draft exists to force men
(involuntarily) to serve (servitude) in the military. (I've even heard
liberals advocate conscription for other purposes...to make us all
more patriotic, & to save money doing social good. Would you
grant this unlimited power over us?)

Then we have the 14th Amendment regarding "equal protection".
To treat men & women as having different rights & obligations
under the Constitution is a very tough sell.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

esmith

Veteran Member
As far as I'm concerned all male or female citizens of the U.S. shoudl be subject to being drafted into the U.S. military subject to certain exemptions such as health.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As far as I'm concerned all male or female citizens of the U.S. shoudl be subject to being drafted into the U.S. military subject to certain exemptions such as health.
Let's say that someone is exempted from the draft for
health reasons, eg, Biden's asthma, Trump's bone spurs.
If they're spared military service, shouldn't they have
to pay compensation for this privilege of avoiding the
inconvenience & risk of serving in the military?
They could pay money or spend a couple years
picking up trash along the highway.

But why not simply pay such a great wage that
enuf soldiers would volunteer? That's fair.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Let's say that someone is exempted from the draft for
health reasons, eg, Biden's asthma, Trump's bone spurs.
If they're spared military service, shouldn't they have
to pay compensation for this privilege of avoiding the
inconvenience & risk of serving in the military?
They could pay money or spend a couple years
picking up trash along the highway.
So, your saying that if they are blind, and received a exemption, they should be subject to the same consequences you gave?

But why not simply pay such a great wage that
enuf soldiers would volunteer? That's fair.
I usually don't answer a question with a question, but what wage would you have accepted to join the military during Vietnam?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, your saying that if they are blind, and received a exemption, they should be subject to the same consequences you gave?
Some consequences for escaping the obligation imposed
upon everyone else. To have a liability waived, is to receive
something of value. Not being drafted is of great value.
Let the beneficiary compensate those denied that benefit.
I usually don't answer a question with a question, but what wage would you have accepted to join the military during Vietnam?
I wouldn't have.
Aside from opposing the draft & not being military material,
I opposed the war.
BTW, you're just asking a question....no problem at all.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Some consequences for escaping the obligation imposed
upon everyone else. To have a liability waived, is to receive
something of value. Not being drafted is of great value.
Let the beneficiary compensate those denied that benefit.
As long as someone is given an exemption then everyone with the exact same reason for the exemption should also be granted the exemption, then no harm no foul. However, if that is not done then we have a problem.

I wouldn't have.
Aside from opposing the draft & not being military material,
I opposed the war.
BTW, you're just asking a question....no problem at all.
Point taken.
However, it may just be my upbringing but I consider it an obligation to serve your country when asked to do so.
I may or may not agree with the reason for using the military but I would go if asked to and IMO everyone not given an exemption (conditions in above must be met) should also do so.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As long as someone is given an exemption then everyone with the exact same reason for the exemption should also be granted the exemption, then no harm no foul. However, if that is not done then we have a problem.


Point taken.
However, it may just be my upbringing but I consider it an obligation to serve your country when asked to do so.
I may or may not agree with the reason for using the military but I would go if asked to and IMO everyone not given an exemption (conditions in above must be met) should also do so.
I don't feel any such obligation to serve.
 
Top