Who Should Be Eligible For Or Exempt From The Draft?

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's why you're such a valued member of RF!

Okay, as short as i can do it. It is possible to have other premisses that yours yet don't be totally irrational. But if you insist that your are in effect universal, objectively and what not correct, then yes, mine is incorrect.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, as short as i can do it. It is possible to have other premisses that yours yet don't be totally irrational. But if you insist that your are in effect universal, objectively and what not correct, then yes, mine is incorrect.

I eagerly await a cogent argument that the draft is constitutional.
The mere claim that it's possible won't satisfy this groundskeeper.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I eagerly await a cogent argument that the draft is constitutional.

Well, here it is.
If you accept X, Y and Z as assumptions in your analysis, then yes, the draft is unconstitutional. If you accept R, S and T it is constitutional.
We are not dealing with something objective as such. We are dealing with a social construct and how we interpret it is also a social construct.
There are no scientific natural law/theory of the Constitution and no objective methodology for how to interpret it.

I have no desire to play a game of my assumptions are correct and your aren't. It can't be done. It is a case of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and ends in this: Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Measure is the social, value evaluation and all that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, here it is.
If you accept X, Y and Z as assumptions in your analysis, then yes, the draft is unconstitutional. If you accept R, S and T it is constitutional.
We are not dealing with something objective as such. We are dealing with a social construct and how we interpret it is also a social construct.
There are no scientific natural law/theory of the Constitution and no objective methodology for how to interpret it.

I have no desire to play a game of my assumptions are correct and your aren't. It can't be done. It is a case of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and ends in this: Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Measure is the social, value evaluation and all that.

This is no game.
Loss of civil liberties, injury, & death are at stake.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is no game.
Loss of civil liberties, injury, & death are at stake.

Yeah, also if you don't have enough soldiers and the enemy wins.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, also if you don't have enough soldiers and the enemy wins.

Now it's not about law or justice...just practicality.

Considering justice....
If too few are willing to fight willingly for a country,
that suggests the country isn't worth fighting for.
The draft is merely the unwilling many imposing
the full burden upon the unwilling few.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now it's not about law or justice...just practicality.

Considering justice....
If too few are willing to fight willingly for a country,
that suggests the country isn't worth fighting for.
The draft is merely the unwilling many imposing
the full burden upon the unwilling few.

Yeah, that is your interpretation. I accept that you do that, and I accept that you don't accept that I do it differently. That is it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that is your interpretation. I accept that you do that, and I accept that you don't accept that I do it differently. That is it.

Sounds like agreement to disagree.
Woohoo!

 

[Kooky]

I eagerly await a cogent argument that the draft is constitutional.
The mere claim that it's possible won't satisfy this groundskeeper.

Given that the US has had drafts since the 1860s, those shouldn't be really hard to find now should they? I'm pretty sure the USSC had something to say about Lincoln's draft, for example.

I admit that I'm not familiar with the exact arguments used to justify selective service in the US, as this is not something I've ever had to grapple with personally (there was never a question whether our conscription laws were constitutional, and they go much further than the US one).

 

[Stevicus]

Given that the US has had drafts since the 1860s, those shouldn't be really hard to find now should they? I'm pretty sure the USSC had something to say about Lincoln's draft, for example.

I admit that I'm not familiar with the exact arguments used to justify selective service in the US, as this is not something I've ever had to grapple with personally (there was never a question whether our conscription laws were constitutional, and they go much further than the US one).

My observation has been that matters pertaining to national security tend to override constitutional considerations.

 

[Kooky]

My observation has been that matters pertaining to national security tend to override constitutional considerations.

Not always, and usually not forever. Case in point: COVID-19.

 

[Stevicus]

Not always, and usually not forever. Case in point: COVID-19.

True, it's not always the case and definitely not forever. But there have been some instances where violations of the Constitution were permitted, such as Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Espionage Act of 1917 (which also the same year the Supreme Court upheld conscription as being legal), the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2, as well as a whole host of policies and programs motivated by the Red Scare and the Cold War (such as McCarthyism, MKUltra, COINTELPRO, an illegal war in Vietnam, NSA electronic surveillance, etc.). There's also constitutional questions related to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, but again, much of the public has given the government a pass on these matters, all in the name of national security and protection.

COVID-19 is similar, although justified more by concerns about public health, which is related to the overall concept of "protection."

 

[Valjean]

The government will do what it wants to do. They imprisoned suffragettes. They imprisoned dissenters during WWI, they put American citizens in concentration camps during WWII. The draft. The Homeland Security Act. Snowden's revelations -- expedience rules.

 

[Revoltingest]

The government will do what it wants to do. They imprisoned suffragettes. They imprisoned dissenters during WWI, they put American citizens in concentration camps during WWII. The draft. The Homeland Security Act. Snowden's revelations -- expedience rules.

And civil asset forfeiture....the 4th Amendment is
quickly jettisoned when government smells money.

 

[Stevicus]

The government will do what it wants to do. They imprisoned suffragettes. They imprisoned dissenters during WWI, they put American citizens in concentration camps during WWII. The draft. The Homeland Security Act. Snowden's revelations -- expedience rules.

I think a large part of the dissent comes from not understanding the reasons why the government does what it does. What's their motivation? On the surface, they can say that they're just doing what they think the voters want them to do, or what they think is "for the good of society." But then, a lot of voters seem to get hoodwinked and tricked into thinking that some politician's agenda is "for the good of society."

Lincoln may be largely forgiven because people view the overall positive of Lincoln winning the Civil War and freeing the slaves as overriding the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus and other undesirable/questionable actions undertaken by the Union government and military at the time.

I think the public also view Wilson and FDR positively, even while still knowing many of the unsavory things that occurred under their leadership. But again, the positives seemed to outweigh the negatives.