To draft or not to draft

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Even though a said draft goes counter to the Constitution?

Lincoln changed that, as did Jefferson Davis...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Lincoln changed that, as did Jefferson Davis...

-Not legally. When the Constitution states law, it is the highest law of the land as claimed.

You cannot legally contradict the Constitution and therefore any law or Amendment that does is to be ignored.

War powers and executive orders included.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
-Not legally. When the Constitution states law, it is the highest law of the land as claimed.

You cannot legally contradict the Constitution and therefore any law or Amendment that does is to be ignored.

War powers and executive orders included.

Legal had little to do with any of it. I agree. That doesn't change the precedents that filtered down. You may gnash your teeth, but reality dominates.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by NewGuy
-Not legally. When the Constitution states law, it is the highest law of the land as claimed.

You cannot legally contradict the Constitution and therefore any law or Amendment that does is to be ignored.

War powers and executive orders included.

God knows we don't want anything illegal going on in the US.:

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Legal had little to do with any of it. I agree. That doesn't change the precedents that filtered down. You may gnash your teeth, but reality dominates.

Then you advocate following a law which is illegal and contrary to the Constitution?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
-Not legally. When the Constitution states law, it is the highest law of the land as claimed.

You cannot legally contradict the Constitution and therefore any law or Amendment that does is to be ignored.

War powers and executive orders included.

but there will always be the masses who extoll the virtues of presidents violating the constitution for the greater good, like they are some sort of god or something.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
but there will always be the masses who extoll the virtues of presidents violating the constitution for the greater good, like they are some sort of god or something.

 

[Annie]

We've always been and will be more than the obvious, including the Constitution. Reality gets in the way and the Constitution adapts, which is what makes it superiour to all the state constitutions for these years.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
We've always been and will be more than the obvious, including the Constitution. Reality gets in the way and the Constitution adapts, which is what makes it superiour to all the state constitutions for these years.

Wrong.

Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Wrong.

Ah the way the 'system' works. Gotta speak up when there is a breach. After Lincoln they didn't thus, becomes codiefied. Now take it to the SC for clarification. That is how executive became too powerful in my opinion.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Ah the way the 'system' works. Gotta speak up when there is a breach. After Lincoln they didn't thus, becomes codiefied. Now take it to the SC for clarification. That is how executive became too powerful in my opinion.

I would agree that war powers is what sabotaged things.

However, shirking responsibility for fixing things by blaming history and forgetting all about the fact that legally, it is still the highest authority in the land is not a moral or ethical thing to do.

Just because it "has been done" doesn't make it right or acceptable.

The supreme court has no jurisdiction to claim anything Constitutional or not and may not even rule in such a case.

I can refer you to the other thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8022

For proof.

 

[dilloduck]

Is it "legal" for us to get a bunch of enforcement type people together to arrest everyone who is in breach of the constitution?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Is it "legal" for us to get a bunch of enforcement type people together to arrest everyone who is in breach of the constitution?

it goes along the lines of getting rid of the government and starting anew thing in the constitution. you know, that document that is supposed to limit government authority and power.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Is it "legal" for us to get a bunch of enforcement type people together to arrest everyone who is in breach of the constitution?

The American Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

[dilloduck]

You mean a constitutional revolution?

 

[Bullypulpit]

A de facto draft already exists in the form of stop-loss orders and the calling up of the ready reserves.

 

[freeandfun1]

that is not a draft bully. when you sign up, you agree to serve 8 years total even if you only sign up for 2, 3, 4 years, etc. as your initial stint. You sign up agreeing to serve, if needed, a total of 8 years.

nice spin you are trying to put on this.

 

[NATO AIR]

i just wanted to say i've been in charge of 9 people underway, five of which have only been out of their training pipelines (3 months of hospital corpsman school) for about 1-4 months, and they have been 100% within a week of getting onboard. (my shining star is a girl fresh out of school, she's been kicking butt and taking names for the past 3 months and will make a fine officer or senior NCO one day)

they're on point, its the military system (pay, benefits, additional training) that is behind the curve. in the navy at least, a person could potentially serve in a large number of different positions with only 2 years of service. to prove this, i asked other e-4's and e-5's i know in other departments, from engineering to navigation to aviation to supply... all say they've got brand new people or people who are fairly fresh from their short schools and they're doing fantastic. this is only the navy, but i'd gander the coast guard and air force are more similar than different to this.

the army and the marines are the harder part, you got to teach people how to fight and survive. that takes longer, but is not impossible. if the army wasn't eating its seed corn and running out so many good NCO's, it could be done.

as far as the overall benefits of the draft, here's my position...

mandatory on 18th birthday, very very very few exceptions. choose 2 years in the navy, air force or coast guard or 4 years in the army and marines. you choose 2 years, i'll give you full undergrad/community college money. you choose 4 years, i'll pay all that plus your grad school. you don't want to go to school, i'll give both the 2 and 4 year folks a small business grant or a home ownership grant.

if military service isn't your cup o' tea, you can join Americorps or the Peace Corps either before you start college or working, or after. 2 years in either of these. you sign up for this, same benefits as the 2 year navy/af/coast guard deal. if you've already graduated college, i'll give you a small biz grant or home ownership grant.


hey i'm lonely as hell, getting ready to go underway for months on end, most family and most friends are sick of me talking about Sudan's genocide and the AIDS emergency. would be glad to get some mail or e-mail from anybody.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
A de facto draft already exists in the form of stop-loss orders and the calling up of the ready reserves.

Bully that's crap and you know it. From someone less intelligent I'd buy stupidity, from you, just crap for the rest. Get a point and deal with it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by NATO AIR

the army and the marines are the harder part, you got to teach people how to fight and survive. that takes longer, but is not impossible. if the army wasn't eating its seed corn and running out so many good NCO's, it could be done.

Your thinking is just a little misconbobulated. Actually, teaching people to fight and survive is easier than you think as much of what you need to know is actually instinctual. You just have to learn how to "tap into" those instincts.

The Army is full of good NCOs and frankly, they are getting better ones everyday. But as I said, without the draft, we are creating a "warrior" class of citizenry. The Army was full (I know from experience) of NCOs that were just in for the retirement. Sure, we all get a job looking for retirement, but you try to find a job you like. In the Army you have those that truly enjoy what they are doing and you have those that are just looking to get something out of the Army. Neither type of soldier is really bad, except you eventually want to get rid of those that are in it just for retirement and are not there because they enjoy the challenge the military provides. So what is happening today is that a lot of the Clinton era NCO's were NCOs that were looking for retirement (save the Rangers, some elite Infantry units, SF, etc.) and those are the guys that are leaving now. The ones that will be filling their places are guys that earned their stripes during serious warfare and frankly, they will be better at their jobs than those that initially trained them. However, these guys are what I say are the foundation of what is quickly becoming our warriour class of Americans. They tend to be hispanics, white kids from the midwest, Appalachians and intermountain west, with a few inner city kids thrown in (of all races). These are the ones that are making up the backbone of our current military. These are the guys reenlisting.

Did you see Blackhawk down? What about the interviews with the soldiers that the movie was about? When you look at them, you see what the American military is becoming. I like it, but don't get pissed later and start screaming it is not inclusive enough. As military service gets harder, you are going to get only a special kind of person that will go into the military and that is going to create a warrior class within our society.