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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

KevinKennedy, yes, verily yes, you have commitment, regardless of what you think, to the social compact. Americans always have, and Americans always will. That you dislike it is not evidence.

 

[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.

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

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

So your opinion proves that my opinion is false?

 

[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.

KevinKennedy, yes, verily yes, you have commitment, regardless of what you think, to the social compact. Americans always have, and Americans always will. That you dislike it is not evidence.

I can only have a commitment to that which I have personally committed to, and I have never committed to serve the government and the government has no right to make that commitment to itself on my behalf.

 

[Bfgrn]

PRESS RELEASE

Congressman Rangel Reintroduces Bill To Reinstate Military Draft

July 15, 2010 2:58 PM

WASHINGTON - Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced H.R. 5741, a bill that would reinstate a compulsory military draft, or alternative national service, during times of war, for men and women, aged 18 to 42, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States.

"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Congressman Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.

"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way.

"In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsory military draft," Congressman Rangel said.

The bill, which the Congressman first introduced in 2003 as the nation prepared for the invasion of Iraq, and offered again in 2004, 2006, and 2007, provides for:

• A national service obligation--either military or civilian--for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.

• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.

• Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the President that promotes national or homeland security.

• Give the President the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.

• Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.

• Directs the President to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.

• Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.

• Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.

BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME

Rangel said that he was not challenging President Obama's handling of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, conflicts with few options that the President had inherited from the previous Administration.

"I support the President's intentions to withdraw our troops, but I'd like to see it happen sooner. In my view, no additional tax dollars should be appropriated for any reason except to bring home our brave and exhausted young men and women. The loss of 5,500 lives and 38,000 wounded is enough."

A combined total of 160,000 Americans are currently deployed. More than 2 million men and women have served in the two conflicts, nearly half of them for more than one tour of duty. And because of a shortage of manpower, some of them have been deployed as many as six times.

"The 3.3 million military households, representing only one percent of American families, have become a virtual military class who are unfairly carrying the burden of war," Congressman Rangel said. "If there were a draft, there would be no shortage of troops to fill the ranks without repeatedly deploying the same exhausted troops over and over."

So far, the numbers of casualties may not be as high, or as shocking, as those suffered in previous wars. But the physical and mental damage to individual soldiers is not only heartbreaking but is taking place at rates never before seen in modern warfare.

The reason is that advances in medical technology have allowed more wounded soldiers to survive the loss of limbs, and serious head and brain injuries. "The result is a practical epidemic of cases of post traumatic stress disorder, suicides, and family disruptions," Congressman Rangel said.

Again in this war, troops recruited from large urban centers with high unemployment and from economically depressed small towns, are carrying the heaviest burden of service. Enlistment bonuses are as high as $40,000. Incentives for reenlistment range from $1,000 for the lowest-skilled privates to $27,000 for staff sergeants with special skills. Combined with the economic recession these incentives have produced record-breaking recruiting results this year.

"The question of whether we need a universal compulsory military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of its young men and women in harm's way," Congressman Rangel said.

"We make decisions about war without worry over who fights them. Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders," Congressman Rangel said.

For more information on Congressman Rangel's position on the war and what he is doing in Washington and in the District, please visit his web site at Home | Congressman Charles B. Rangel: Serving New York's 15th District.

Congressman Rangel Reintroduces Bill To Reinstate Military Draft | Congressman Charles B. Rangel: Serving New York's 15th District

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Tell me what it is you hate about this country and I will assign you to that area as part of your national service.

 

[Jeremy]

... nuff said.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Rangel is just being his usual nuisance. He does this every election cycle, and folks at liberal boards get all hot and bothered that the evil conservatives are going to bring back the draft.

0bama sees his version as something similar to the Komsomol or the Hitler Youth. Mandatory volunteerism in the service of the state. Not until private volunteerism is stamped out can we have the national party version brought in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I think it would be a lot harder to justify a national service conscription than it would the military draft. At least the power to raise armies actually exists in the Constitution, and no one was forced to join the Army and stay until they were 42.

That said, I agree that the bill is probably diw.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Maybe you should take your own advice about opinions.

 

[Intense]

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.

[11] The community has no bribe that will tempt a wise man. You may raise money enough to tunnel a mountain. but you cannot raise money enough to hire a man who is minding his own business. An efficient and valuable man does what he can, whether the community pay him for it or not. The inefficient offer their inefficiency to the highest bidder, and are forever expecting to be put into office. One would suppose that they were rarely disappointed...........

[13] Merely to come into the world the heir of a fortune is not to be born, but to be still-born, rather. To be supported by the charity of friends, or a government pension--provided you continue to breathe--by whatever fine synonymes you describe these relations, is to go into the almshouse. On Sundays the poor debtor goes to church to take an account of stock, and finds, of course, that his outgoes have been greater than his income. In the Catholic Church, especially, they go into Chancery, make a clean confession, give up all, and think to start again. Thus men will lie on their backs, talking about the fall of man, and never make an effort to get up.

[14] As for the comparative demand which men make on life, it is an important difference between two, that the one is satisfied with a level success, that his marks can all be hit by point-blank shots, but the other, however low and unsuccessful his life may be, constantly elevates his aim, though at a very slight angle to the horizon. I should much rather be the last man--though, as the Orientals say, 'Greatness doth not approach him who is forever looking down; and all those who are looking high are growing poor.'


-Thoreau

Thoreau--Life Without Principle

 

[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.

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

KevinKennedy, yes, verily yes, you have commitment, regardless of what you think, to the social compact. Americans always have, and Americans always will. That you dislike it is not evidence.

Verily yes, indeed, yon Centrist!

 

[Intense]

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.

The Will of the People is also Constitutional. National Service must qualify to be Constitutional. You speak like a mid level bureaucrat Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Will of the People can alter the Constitution. I speak as an informed citizen who understands these matters, am objective in my studies, and not blinded by the prism of any "ism', Intense. You are the one who talks as if you were a lackey of an institution whether public or private, whereas I am not in government and am very successful professionally, financially, and socially in my chosen field.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Will of the People can alter the Constitution. I speak as an informed citizen who understands these matters, am objective in my studies, and not blinded by the prism of any "ism', Intense. You are the one who talks as if you were a lackey of an institution whether public or private, whereas I am not in government and am very successful professionally, financially, and socially in my chosen field.

Only through the amendment process can the Constitution be altered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Will of the People can alter the Constitution. I speak as an informed citizen who understands these matters, am objective in my studies, and not blinded by the prism of any "ism', Intense. You are the one who talks as if you were a lackey of an institution whether public or private, whereas I am not in government and am very successful professionally, financially, and socially in my chosen field.

Only through the amendment process can the Constitution be altered.

However, it can be interpreted by SCOTUS, the which you can disagree but not disobey.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Will of the People can alter the Constitution. I speak as an informed citizen who understands these matters, am objective in my studies, and not blinded by the prism of any "ism', Intense. You are the one who talks as if you were a lackey of an institution whether public or private, whereas I am not in government and am very successful professionally, financially, and socially in my chosen field.

Only through the amendment process can the Constitution be altered.

However, it can be interpreted by SCOTUS, the which you can disagree but not disobey.

And the SCOTUS can be ignored by the states.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

Face it, we're too dumb to re-write a Constitution that anyone would want to live under. I can't trust my fellow Americans to write a statute properly and I'm going to entrust them with writing an entire Constitution?

Count me out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only through the amendment process can the Constitution be altered.

However, it can be interpreted by SCOTUS, the which you can disagree but not disobey.

And the SCOTUS can be ignored by the states.

The states cannot "ignore" a SCOTUS ruling. The U.S. federal court will issue an order of compliance, then send in the U.S. Marshals to enforce compliance.

KevinKennedy, you have a right to your own opinion, but not your own reality and your own definitions.

 

[Intense]

The Will of the People can alter the Constitution. I speak as an informed citizen who understands these matters, am objective in my studies, and not blinded by the prism of any "ism', Intense. You are the one who talks as if you were a lackey of an institution whether public or private, whereas I am not in government and am very successful professionally, financially, and socially in my chosen field.

Only through the amendment process can the Constitution be altered.

However, it can be interpreted by SCOTUS, the which you can disagree but not disobey.

The all powerful wizard has spoken!

 

[Intense]

However, it can be interpreted by SCOTUS, the which you can disagree but not disobey.

And the SCOTUS can be ignored by the states.

The states cannot "ignore" a SCOTUS ruling. The U.S. federal court will issue an order of compliance, then send in the U.S. Marshals to enforce compliance.

KevinKennedy, you have a right to your own opinion, but not your own reality and your own definitions.

Unless the Federal Government arbitrarily decides not to enforce the Law, drink that Kool-Aid now Sparky.

Real good job on borders and immigration. Huh??? WTFU