Is military conscription unconstitutional?

[Delta4Embassy]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional

"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.

However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.

During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

more at link, good article.

 

[MisterBeale]

If the STATE seriously believed this, then they would do away with your birth certificate, and your social security number.

No, don't have any illusions buddy, you are the property of the STATE.

 

[DGS49]

Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but that doesn't mean they all smell good. And as for the opinion of a "constitutional attorney" (whatever that is), we now have a President who claims to have been a professor of Constitutional Law in Chicago, and you can see how that's going.

The very idea that the Founding Fathers did not (or would not have) approve of conscription is ludicrous. While it is true that, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,..." Due process contemplates the passage of a law and its enforcement, which covers the issue of the military draft.

Is this former military officer not aware of the hundreds of cases of draftees who refused to serve or went AWOL and were prosecuted, challenged their conscription AND LOST? Hundreds if not thousands of cases implicitly confirming the constitutionality of the draft - and even the PEACETIME draft, which the Founding Parents might not have contemplated.

As for the wisdom of the Draft, again everyone has their own opinion. I would argue emphatically that if we had had a rational draft process in place in 2003 (no deferments, draftees chosen at random), WE WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT ALL THOSE YEARS IN IRAQ AND A'STAN. Nor would we be collectively wringing our hands about enlisted soldiers with wives and kids collecting food stamps. Nor would we have a whole generation of Yoots who believe firmly that they owe their country nothing but the few dollars in income taxes that they are not able to avoid, one way or another.

Is the military draft immoral? Opinions can surely differ on that issue. Is it moral to use military force (kill people and break stuff) when your nation is not specifically threatened? Or when the threat is dubious? Is it moral to fail to stop genocide in a foreign country when you have the power to do it? You could write books.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Your ass would smell just fine if you actually bothered washing it once in a while.

 

[Liminal]

Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but that doesn't mean they all smell good. And as for the opinion of a "constitutional attorney" (whatever that is), we now have a President who claims to have been a professor of Constitutional Law in Chicago, and you can see how that's going.

The very idea that the Founding Fathers did not (or would not have) approve of conscription is ludicrous. While it is true that, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,..." Due process contemplates the passage of a law and its enforcement, which covers the issue of the military draft.

Is this former military officer not aware of the hundreds of cases of draftees who refused to serve or went AWOL and were prosecuted, challenged their conscription AND LOST? Hundreds if not thousands of cases implicitly confirming the constitutionality of the draft - and even the PEACETIME draft, which the Founding Parents might not have contemplated.

As for the wisdom of the Draft, again everyone has their own opinion. I would argue emphatically that if we had had a rational draft process in place in 2003 (no deferments, draftees chosen at random), WE WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT ALL THOSE YEARS IN IRAQ AND A'STAN. Nor would we be collectively wringing our hands about enlisted soldiers with wives and kids collecting food stamps. Nor would we have a whole generation of Yoots who believe firmly that they owe their country nothing but the few dollars in income taxes that they are not able to avoid, one way or another.

Is the military draft immoral? Opinions can surely differ on that issue. Is it moral to use military force (kill people and break stuff) when your nation is not specifically threatened? Or when the threat is dubious? Is it moral to fail to stop genocide in a foreign country when you have the power to do it? You could write books.

Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers thought, they created a nation based on slavery. Their positions on human rights and individual liberties were somewhat less that consistent.

 

[whitehall]

The Supreme Court upheld Woodie Wilson's draft during the unpopular era of WW1. The FDR administration expanded the draft from only wartime to the peacetime draft and apparently it was upheld by a lower court. It would be interesting for the courts to examine the possibility of drafting females.

 

[DGS49]

But don't forget, Whitehall, Libs think that nobody really understood the Constitution until Earl Warren became CJ. So it's up for grabs now.

 

[AJT]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional

"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.

However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.

During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

more at link, good article.

If you are a "Constitutional attorney", you should be aware of the case of "Schenck vs United States."
In Schenck, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who was convicted of sedition for passing out leaflets encouraging men to resist the draft. It would appear that the draft is very legal.

 

[Roadrunner]

Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but that doesn't mean they all smell good. And as for the opinion of a "constitutional attorney" (whatever that is), we now have a President who claims to have been a professor of Constitutional Law in Chicago, and you can see how that's going.

The very idea that the Founding Fathers did not (or would not have) approve of conscription is ludicrous. While it is true that, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,..." Due process contemplates the passage of a law and its enforcement, which covers the issue of the military draft.

Is this former military officer not aware of the hundreds of cases of draftees who refused to serve or went AWOL and were prosecuted, challenged their conscription AND LOST? Hundreds if not thousands of cases implicitly confirming the constitutionality of the draft - and even the PEACETIME draft, which the Founding Parents might not have contemplated.

As for the wisdom of the Draft, again everyone has their own opinion. I would argue emphatically that if we had had a rational draft process in place in 2003 (no deferments, draftees chosen at random), WE WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT ALL THOSE YEARS IN IRAQ AND A'STAN. Nor would we be collectively wringing our hands about enlisted soldiers with wives and kids collecting food stamps. Nor would we have a whole generation of Yoots who believe firmly that they owe their country nothing but the few dollars in income taxes that they are not able to avoid, one way or another.

Is the military draft immoral? Opinions can surely differ on that issue. Is it moral to use military force (kill people and break stuff) when your nation is not specifically threatened? Or when the threat is dubious? Is it moral to fail to stop genocide in a foreign country when you have the power to do it? You could write books.

The draft is a great motivator of yoots.

That said, we would not have endless wars and the exploitation of the volunteer military if we had a draft.

If a conflict lasts over 90-120 days, and involves over 200,000 or so troops, a draft should automatically be triggered.

That might stop some of these "non-wars" we are bogged down in.

 

[Christophera]

If the STATE seriously believed this, then they would do away with your birth certificate, and your social security number.

No, don't have any illusions buddy, you are the property of the STATE.

For that possession to be lawful in America, the state must be fully constitutional which is not inherently objectionable to people generally.

Our federal government has not been constitutional since well before the civil war. The act of 1871 is a covert rededication of government to purposes held by a ten mile square district. If infiltrations into state governments had not been completed to a degree that rededication would not have been accepted.

The documents you mention are a product and tool of that infiltration into the federal and state government working to usurp the principles of the 1787 constitution established in part by the 1776 Declaration.

American people have a deep fixation in their families with those principles despite their frequent inability to articulate all of them equally, accurately.

Those principles will serve as the basis of recognition of inherent unity eventually. Sooner is better.

 

[prison/con.net]

I don't "owe" this country a red cent, and neither does anyone else. If they can't get it paid for voluntarily and by lotteries, it shouldn't exist.

 

[imawhosure]

LOL, to you young people, and I do not know who is, and who is not young on here..............I promise you that within the next 10 to 15 years, there will be another draft.

I won't go into why because that will become the debate point. But it is coming if we look at the world today, by a ratio as I speak of 70-30. Now many of you will probably miss the cut because of age, and good for you; but will your children?

The things we do today, or stop today, determine what we have to deal with tomorrow. If you look in history, it has always been that way. If you look at the correlation between then and now, you will understand that I am not blowing smoke; rather I am warning you.

Let me put it in a way you might understand, since I know you guys/gals are all into financial apps.............if you invest X today, you will be all good 30 years down the road. If you ignore it and spend to do what sounds good and have fun now, down the road you get crumbs.

I am older, and that financial app is telling you the truth. We didn't have those things, and if we did, many more of my generation would have listened because it was their I-phone telling them, instead of their brother, sister, uncle, father, or mother.

Now I am warning you..............taking care of your future with money is one the most important things you can ever do; but money is worth nothing, if you don't insure your and your familys safety.

Fiscal freedom, along with insuring your personal freedom goes hand in hand. One is no good without the other. A balance is always needed. At this moment, it looks like a draft sooner then you would like. That means you might not be paying enough attention, so may I suggest, you do so! Use your I-Phone to research. I am sure you will believe it, far sooner than you will believe me.

 

[Christophera]

Now I am warning you..............taking care of your future with money is one the most important things you can ever do; but money is worth nothing, if you don't insure your and your familys safety.

Fiscal freedom, along with insuring your personal freedom goes hand in hand. One is no good without the other.

Wise words.

I'm working to start a debate about how to assure our personal freedom and have what appears to be the ultimate strategy and plan. I say that because no one will debate it. Because the only answers to a few critical questions are obvious implications of statements in the framing documents of America. So I always win the debate.

That's no fun for people who want to debate because if it's their personal safety and freedom at stake, and they cannot find away to show the strategy I've put forth is not the most functional, they would rather turn their back on it and leave it up to politics as usual.

People seem to have an unconscious mandate to not cause any change. Complaining about problems and fantasizing about different ways of doing things is popular, but doing something to create change, no way.

Fight that compulsion, use the words of imawhosure. Good advice. Examine all the different ways of creating change then examine this, or look at it first and try to find something that is as certain. You'll be back soon.

BTW, a cognitive infiltrator has posted lots of off topic quasi legal stuff to try and confuse the issue, so reading the OP is all that's productive.

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

ON EDIT: The strategy I propose is something we must work on between us first for the creation of unity. We can do it while we are taking part in politics as usual in the crisis management mode used to manipulate us. Then, at some point it will be obvious that we can act successfully.

If we do not take these measures, there is a real threat underlined by an action of congress which ends 226 years of non feasance in violation of the constitution, their oaths and the law.

226 Years Of Congressional Nonfeasance Ended-A hidden threat US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That is a historical event presented there, but no one is interested. What does that tell you? Critical thinking is your friend.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional

"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.

However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.

During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

more at link, good article.

Article I Section 8 Clause 12

 

[Christophera]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional

"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.

However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.

During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

more at link, good article.

Article I Section 8 Clause 12

Violated​

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional
"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

It is definitely not unconstitutional, as said by the SCotUS.

 

[usmcstinger]

Supreme Court rules that the draft is constitutional - Selective Draft Law Cases., 38 S. Ct. 159, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

Your inability to research Federal Law is quite obvious.

 

[shadow355]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional

"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.

However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.

During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

more at link, good article.

Yeah. I guess if one looked at it from one point of view, it would be a forth amendment violation.

I can see both sides of the argument = for and against the military draft.

But, in my opinion, Mandatory Military service would =

1. Bring down the crime rate.

2. Decrease welfare and "B.S" social security injury payments.....saving the Govt money.

3. Add more educated and technical trained workers to the workforce, increasing tax bases across the nation.

4. Make society better to live in, which I won't list all the better parts - but look at the countries in Europe, as well as Isreal to get an idea.

Shadow 355

 

[Alystyr]

The Rutherford Institute The Draft Unwise Immoral and Unconstitutional

"However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.

The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.

However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.

During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

more at link, good article.

Yeah. I guess if one looked at it from one point of view, it would be a forth amendment violation.

I can see both sides of the argument = for and against the military draft.

But, in my opinion, Mandatory Military service would =

1. Bring down the crime rate.

2. Decrease welfare and "B.S" social security injury payments.....saving the Govt money.

3. Add more educated and technical trained workers to the workforce, increasing tax bases across the nation.

4. Make society better to live in, which I won't list all the better parts - but look at the countries in Europe, as well as Isreal to get an idea.

Shadow 355

I agree with all of your points. I think that what you posted would be fairly close to the resulting effect.

Here's a point of my own that could make that effect even stronger:

1) Mandatory military service should occur between high school and college, should the person choose to continue with higher education.
This would have its benefits, not the least of which would be a (hopefully) more disciplined mindset. It could reduce or possibly eliminate two of the biggest detractors toward learning - going to college only to get away from home and/or partying nearly 24/7.
Also, perhaps, college credit could be granted based on training received during their service, making it less time-consuming (and thus less expensive) to receive a degree.

 

[DGS49]

With so many of youths today being fat, out of shape, mama's boys (and girls), a military draft would be beneficial to the nation's health.

Eliminating the draft is at the top of a long list of major fuck-ups by the Georgia peanut farmer. It is amazing how much harm this one person managed to do in four short years.