Any Draft Dodgers On RF?

[Wu Wei]

If one is involuntarily put into service of someone else, it would require
strained & specious argument to claim this isn't involuntary servitude.
That's what lawyers do.

But unlike slavery....they get paid..... this is why I am not certain that "servitude" would hold up as a defense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, this is another instance of another statement in the Constitution that is unclear. It is not defined as to what the authors meant by the term "involuntary servitude."

I imagine the SCOTUS would rule against you considering we've had drafts before but maybe they would agree with you. I don't know.

Of course they'd rule against me.
The USSC is generally on the side of what they see as necessity.
Unconstitutionality becomes irrelevant, if they believe the draft is
necessary to wage war. Language is always flexible enuf to prove
legally that black is white, & up is down. It depends upon what the
meaning of "is" is, eh.

I might get one or two justices to side with me though.
Malcontents & mavericks are my allies.

 

[Revoltingest]

But unlike slavery....they get paid..... this is why I am not certain that "servitude" would hold up as a defense.

Some slaves were paid.
Ref...
Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia

Does being paid for involuntary work make it not slavery?
Especially when the pay is de minimis?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup the risk is you get shot and the cost is the guys that shot you need to buy new bullets.

I can think of a few additional costs.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And this gives one the right to bear arms, but not to draw down on a government official who has come to enforce an alleged draft. Basically I am saying the example used was rather silly IMO. One action did not justify the other. Oppose the draft but support the second amendment therefore pull you gun on those that are there to enforce that draft, if in fact it came to that. The 2 do not go together nor does on justify the other in my mind

And another thing

And I still think this is a MUCH better idea

The question is what governmental action rises to the level of justifying armed revolution?
Opposition to the draft went that way to some extent during the Civil War.
Ultimately it's decided by success in overthrowing the government.
Failing that, heads will roll.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I was being facetious. Hence, the .

I knew.
But your post demanded the response.

 

[Wu Wei]

Some slaves were paid.
Ref...
Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia

Does being paid for involuntary work make it not slavery?
Especially when the pay is de minimis?

Some slaves, not all. All military are paid and it is not, in some cases, less than they would get if they were not in the military and in the military they also get healthcare, food and housing and if they stay in long enough, a pension.

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that being drafted, since to be drafted one voluntarily registers, is not servitude and I fairly certain that if one were to go in to virtually any court in the land and try and justify it by equating it to slavery would likely lose that court case, as well as upset a lot of people whose had ancestors who were legitimately slaves.

I'm not saying beyond any shadow of doubt you are wrong, you may be right, but I do not believe so, and I think at best that your argument is on shaky ground.

 

[Wu Wei]

I can think of a few additional costs.

The question is what governmental action rises to the level of justifying armed revolution?
Opposition to the draft went that way to some extent during the Civil War.
Ultimately it's decided by success in overthrowing the government.
Failing that, heads will roll.

The Civil war.....Opposition to the draft!?!?!?!?

OK. now I am officially confused.

And they were not trying to overthrow the government, only secede from it... although I do agree that the attempt failed

 

[columbus]

There's the small matter of what exactly is meant by "involuntary servitude."

More than once, I have been accused of advocating slavery.
I personally believe that if a couple gets pregnant they owe that child some basic minimum of responsibility for their welfare, including a healthy gestation period and child support. That's been described as slavery by RF members.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Some slaves, not all. All military are paid and it is not, in some cases, less than they would get if they were not in the military and in the military they also get healthcare, food and housing and if they stay in long enough, a pension.

Is involuntary servitude rendered not involuntary if the pay is good?
(Btw, I think the pay is lousy. Otherwise not so many would be on food stamps.)

I am not a lawyer.....

And I like that about you.

......but I am pretty sure that being drafted, since to be drafted one voluntarily registers....

Registration is not voluntary, nor does doing so constitute
granting government this tremendous authority over one.
There are sanctions for not complying
Ref.....
Benefits and Penalties
And government has prosecuted men for failing to register.

.....is not servitude and I fairly certain that if one were to go in to virtually any court in the land and try and justify it by equating it to slavery would likely lose that court case, as well as upset a lot of people whose had ancestors who were legitimately slaves.

I'm not equating the draft with slavery, although that argument could be made.
Instead, I'm saying that the draft is involuntary servitude.

I'm not saying beyond any shadow of doubt you are wrong, you may be right, but I do not believe so, and I think at best that your argument is on shaky ground.

I don't claim to be right.
But I've picked my side in this fight.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Civil war.....Opposition to the draft!?!?!?!?

OK. now I am officially confused.

And they were not trying to overthrow the government, only secede from it... although I do agree that the attempt failed

I wasn't thinking of the Confederacy.
I have a northern perspective.
New York City draft riots - Wikipedia

 

[Wu Wei]

But I've picked my side in this fight.

And I'm ok with that, I just have my doubts that it is legally tenable

 

[Revoltingest]

And I'm ok with that, I just have my doubts that it is legally tenable

I'd say the odds of winning this legal battle are far below 1%.
But as a wise philosopher once said, "F*** government!".

 

[Wu Wei]

I wasn't thinking of the Confederacy.
I have a northern perspective.
New York City draft riots - Wikipedia

That, IMO, is still not the same, beyond it was a riot about a draft. It had more to do with inequality between poor and rich and the rich having the ability to "dodge" the draft by paying a $300 commutation fee to hire a substitute... but it became a race riot with little or nothing to do with the draft. And it was the Race Riot that brought in the military.

Again, IMO, not good evidence to support draft dodging. Actually it appears that the anger at the rich having the ability to dodge the draft was the issue

 

[Wu Wei]

I'd say the odds of winning this legal battle are far below 1%.
But as a wise philosopher once said, "F*** government!".

A wise philosopher also said

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.- Plato

 

[Revoltingest]

That, IMO, is still not the same, beyond it was a riot about a draft. It had more to do with inequality between poor and rich and the rich having the ability to "dodge" the draft by paying a $300 commutation fee to hire a substitute... but it became a race riot with little or nothing to do with the draft. And it was the Race Riot that brought in the military.

Again, IMO, not good evidence to support draft dodging. Actually it appears that the anger at the rich having the ability to dodge the draft was the issue

I don't say it was a revolution, but one could start with violent riots.

I wonder.....
Is legally dodging the draft by using wealth any worse
than dodging it by (at various times in history).....
- Winning a low lottery number
- Being female
- Being transgender
- Being a student
- Being politically connected
- Being physically capable, but too old
- Being a non-citizen
- Being gay
- Having a non-disabling medical issue

 

[columbus]

I am not entirely opposed to a requirement for public service to qualify for all the benefits of living in this country. I would need it to be applied fairly, as opposed to the Draft that rich people like Donald Trump easily dodged by having a crack legal team.
My real point is that the draft has generally not been used that way. WWII was the last time the USA was really threatened. Our most recent military excursion in Iraq was a naked grab for wealth and power by the elite. Refusing to fight for that was the moral thing to do. And I wouldn't put such a military debacle past the current administration either, frankly I expect one.
That's the important issue here, to me. If the USA were attacked I would willingly fight to protect it. If the corporate elite try to draft a bunch of cannon fodder I would oppose that.
Vehemently, possibly in a 2nd amendment sort of way. I am tired of seeing people die for the goals and purposes of our corporate overlords.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

A wise philosopher also said

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.- Plato

The thing about politics never seems to be that one is too smart.
Rather, it's the ability to stomach doing what needs to be done to win.
Could you stand up at a podium, & say the kinds of things you hear?
No, you could not. Neither could I.
I'd say what I believe, & then receive not one vote from any neurotypical person.

 

[Wu Wei]

I don't say it was a revolution, but one could start with violent riots.

I wonder.....
Is legally dodging the draft by using wealth any worse
than dodging it by (at various times in history).....
- Winning a low lottery number
- Being female
- Being transgender
- Being a student
- Being politically connected
- Being physically capable, but too old
- Being a non-citizen
- Being gay
- Having a non-disabling medical issue

Draft dodging is an intentional decision not to comply with the military conscription policies of one's nation. Not knowing if what they were doing was actually legal, or just considered a privilege of wealth that politicians were not willing to question due to, shall we say, political funding issues, I cannot answer that question.

and the rest that you have listed, are, or were, legal reasons to not be drafted therefore not draft dodging.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our most recent military excursion in Iraq was a naked grab for wealth.....by the elite.
Tom

This is so often said.
Who among those who sent us to war gained wealth by so doing?

Btw, in 2016 more people voted for one of them for Prez.
The people like a warmaker. So politicians become one.

 

[Wu Wei]

The thing about politics never seems to be that one is too smart.
Rather, it's the ability to stomach doing what needs to be done to win.
Could you stand up at a podium, & say the kinds of things you hear?
No, you could not. Neither could I.
I'd say what I believe, & then receive not one vote from any neurotypical person.

well I wouldn't vote for you either...but that is mostly due to your outrageous accent and your staunch aversion to personal hygiene