H.R. 5741 - "Universal National Service Act"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

H.R. 5741: To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national... (GovTrack.us)

This is, of course, completely unconstitutional.

"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." - 13th Amendment

Requiring us to perform national service clearly falls under the category of involuntary servitude, otherwise it wouldn't have to be required. Under no circumstances should anyone be forced to serve the state against their will.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since when does the Constitution matter to Obama?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since when does the Constitution matter to Obama?

Or any politician.

 

[midcan5]

Having grown up in a era and social class in which narcissism and money worship hadn't yet provided the primary moral value of Americans, I find arguments against serving the nation that serves you rather thoughtless and empty. If one enjoys the fruits of a society does one have no responsibility to that society? Let's face it no state of nature exists, and if it did the weenies would quickly die off as their primary work is whining about the government that provides the structure and stability in which they live and mostly pout. Have a DI scream at them and they'd run back to mommy anyway, but hey, it would be fun watching.

 

[HerewardTheWake]

LOL

Land of the not so free.

 

[Greenbeard]

Note that just because a bill in introduced, that doesn't mean it's going anywhere (particularly when it has no co-sponsors and its author is fast on his way to pariah status).

That said, conscription has generally been defended under the Congressional authority "To raise and support Armies." The Supreme Court has suggested that the Thirteenth Amendment isn't relevant in such cases:

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] 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 great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

You can argue whether or not this applies to the sort of national service in this bill but it's not immediately obvious it wouldn't have similar justifications.

 

[editec]

Having been one of those people thrown under the bus of selective service, I quite understand these objections to endentured servitude.

This sort of issue is exactly why we need a new for of Constitution goverment.

As a society we either decide to have national service that is truly universal or we ought to bag the whole idea.

I do not think an issue of this magnitude to be left up to our representatives in Congress because its too damned important for just 545 people to decide.

We have the communications technology now to have a different kind of governance -- one that makes truly DEMOCRATIC decisions rather than depending ENTIRELY on the Republican style we have now with our Congress.

And an issue like this one is exactly the kind of decision that really ought to be DIRECTLY left up to the PEOPLE.

We need to put more democracy into this democratic republic, folks. And I do NOT mean giving the STATE LEGISLATURES (that are just a freaking coruupted as our FEDERAL system) still more power over our lives.

It's not the 18th century anymore, kids.

It's time for the USA to grow up and it's time for the PEOPLE, not the elite among us, to take charge of our national fate.

REFERENUM decision making is now possible and we ought to create a consitution that makes some kinds of decisions (including going to war..especially going to war) in the hands of the PEOPLE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Having grown up in a era and social class in which narcissism and money worship hadn't yet provided the primary moral value of Americans, I find arguments against serving the nation that serves you rather thoughtless and empty. If one enjoys the fruits of a society does one have no responsibility to that society? Let's face it no state of nature exists, and if it did the weenies would quickly die off as their primary work is whining about the government that provides the structure and stability in which they live and mostly pout. Have a DI scream at them and they'd run back to mommy anyway, but hey, it would be fun watching.

This isn't about serving society, it's about serving the government. But no one should be forced to do either.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

But this is not for military service.

This is just mandatory slave labor in the service of the state. A whole different kettle of month old rotten fish.

And given the Pentagon's experience with conscript troops, those who were in the military back then are the most passionately anti draft. It is a disaster.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

having grown up in a era and social class in which narcissism and money worship hadn't yet provided the primary moral value of americans, i find arguments against serving the nation that serves you rather thoughtless and empty. If one enjoys the fruits of a society does one have no responsibility to that society? Let's face it no state of nature exists, and if it did the weenies would quickly die off as their primary work is whining about the government that provides the structure and stability in which they live and mostly pout. Have a di scream at them and they'd run back to mommy anyway, but hey, it would be fun watching.

Fuck you! How does that sound?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rangel? LOL

Charlie Rangel introduced it?

In the giant Universe of corrupt Dem scumbags Charlie is a one of the big one!

I guess he wants to start a Civil War to make people forget what a corrupt Democrat scumbag he is.

 

[Immanuel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y]YouTube - Obama civilian national security force.[/ame]

I wonder who will be their targets? Republicans? Conservatives? Christians? Jews? You? Me?

What do we need a Civilian Defense Force for? We aren't sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan are we? No, I highly doubt that. Will we be sending them after gun owners? Maybe that terrible "Pro-Life Movement"?

Talk about "armed and dangerous"!

Immie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

YouTube - Obama civilian national security force.

I wonder who will be their targets? Republicans? Conservatives? Christians? Jews? You? Me?

What do we need a Civilian Defense Force for? We aren't sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan are we? No, I highly doubt that. Will we be sending them after gun owners? Maybe that terrible "Pro-Life Movement"?

Talk about "armed and dangerous"!

Immie

Remember, this is an Administration that considers Veterans as "right wing extremists"

 

[Immanuel]

Wait a minute.

I apologize. I mis-understood this has nothing to do with Obama. This is a Rangel introduced bill and has no co-sponsors. This is going no where. Rangel's tried to re-introduce the draft before, if I am not mistaken.

I'll hold off until the President starts pushing his idea of the CDF... which I pray will never happen.

Immie

 

[blu]

he has done this for about a decade now and it never gets out of committee

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Note that just because a bill in introduced, that doesn't mean it's going anywhere (particularly when it has no co-sponsors and its author is fast on his way to pariah status).

That said, conscription has generally been defended under the Congressional authority "To raise and support Armies." The Supreme Court has suggested that the Thirteenth Amendment isn't relevant in such cases:

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] 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 great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

You can argue whether or not this applies to the sort of national service in this bill but it's not immediately obvious it wouldn't have similar justifications.

And if that fails, you can always call it a "Tax"

 

[Foxfyre]

he has done this for about a decade now and it never gets out of committee

Is a number assigned to a bill that is still in committee? I thought it had to be out of committee before it got a number.

 

[Greenbeard]

he has done this for about a decade now and it never gets out of committee

Is a number assigned to a bill that is still in committee? I thought it had to be out of committee before it got a number.

Every bill gets a number.

 

[Foxfyre]

he has done this for about a decade now and it never gets out of committee

Is a number assigned to a bill that is still in committee? I thought it had to be out of committee before it got a number.

Every bill gets a number.

Yeah, I looked it up. You're right. I guess I was thinking about a number of pieces of legislation that have been publicized lately without numbers attached I suppose making it more difficult to check them out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

H.R. 5741: To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national... (GovTrack.us)

This is, of course, completely unconstitutional.

"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." - 13th Amendment

Requiring us to perform national service clearly falls under the category of involuntary servitude, otherwise it wouldn't have to be required. Under no circumstances should anyone be forced to serve the state against their will.

KevinKennedy, once again you are cautioned that your opinion is neither fact nor probative.

National service, of course, is constitutional. Let's move on.