Judge Rules All-Male Draft Unconstitutional (1 Viewer)

[DadsDream]

In the mid-1990s, I stood before classes of senior enlisted US Army National Guard Bureau full-timers and said this day would come.

Most of them shook their heads in denial. Several became very upset. All of them had to admit things were definetely changing.

You see, in order to reach the very highest level of command, officers had to serve combat tours of duty and faced enemy fire. But women were precluded from combat roles, so they could only be promoted so far.

The push to open combat assignments to women was on. I figured it would finally succeed and it did. Now, it's considered normal.

So, the other shoe drops . . . If women aren't excluded from combat, they must be included in the Draft. There's no way around it.

Judge rules all-male military draft unconstitutional

A federal judge in Texas ruled Friday that the all-male military draft is unconstitutional.U.S. District Judge Gray Miller of the Southern District of Texas wrote in an opinion that the &…

thehill.com

 

[superchuck500]

Yes, I think you're right that this is only the logical continuation of the policy to open military service, fully, to females.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

They should abolish the selective service. Theres really no need for it anymore.

 

[Devildog]

Good. Equality starts with equal access or equally being forked over.

Combat is blurred now and there is no more "front line." Now, if there ever was a need to have a draft again, make it so EVERYONE gets drafted, unless you have a legitimate medical or mental excuse. And, no, bone spurs isn't a legit excuse.

 

[DadsDream]

There's,a heck of a lot more to the Selective Service laws than just the Draft.

Pilots, doctors, nurses, ships captains, air traffic controllers and many other licensed professions carry a Selective Service designation.

If you have one of those licenses and Uncle Sam needs you . . . POOF! . . . Congrats, you are an Army captain, go to war or go to jail.

M.A.S.H. was based on civilian doctors being put in uniform and shipped to Korea with little or no warning.

 

[tomwaits]

How about we just say the draft is unconstitutional altogether?

Reminds me of a Demetri Martin bit.

There's a saying that goes "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Okay. How about "Nobody should throw stones." That's crappy behavior. My policy is: "No stone throwing regardless of housing situation."

 

[tomwaits]

Daniel Webster's take:

Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

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? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?

Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

 

[LafourcheSaint]

How about we just say the draft is unconstitutional altogether?

That will never happen. While I don't see the draft ever happening in this day and age of modern warfare, there's too much precedent to render it unconstitutional without an amendment and I'd advise not holding your breath waiting on that.

 

[tomwaits]

That will never happen. While I don't see the draft ever happening in this day and age of modern warfare, there's too much precedent to render it unconstitutional without an amendment and I'd advise not holding your breath waiting on that.

So even though the Constitution does not say we can have a draft and the federal government is supposed to be limited to what is expressly written in the Constitution, we have had drafts in the past, so we would need an amendment to not have one in the future. Even though slavery is unconstitutional which the draft clearly would be an example of slavery.

 

[LafourcheSaint]

So even though the Constitution does not say we can have a draft and the federal government is supposed to be limited to what is expressly written in the Constitution, we have had drafts in the past, so we would need an amendment to not have one in the future. Even though slavery is unconstitutional which the draft clearly would be an example of slavery.

Oh I agree with you in spirit. The fact that the state can pluck you and make you fight in a war is ridiculous (except maybe in the extreme case of a mass homeland invasion but even then idk) and is very akin to slavery. Unfortunately, all of this reasoning has been tried and failed on the highest levels of the court. I just don't see that changing with all the precedent that exists.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Seems to me that's all they need to justify it.

 

[tomwaits]

Oh I agree with you in spirit. The fact that the state can pluck you and make you fight in a war is ridiculous (except maybe in the extreme case of a mass homeland invasion but even then idk) and is very akin to slavery. Unfortunately, all of this reasoning has been tried and failed on the highest levels of the court. I just don't see that changing with all the precedent that exists.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8




Seems to me that's all they need to justify it.

Well, it's not. By that logic we would have to be ok with absolutely anything they do.

 

[Jeff Miller]

personally, the way this younger generation is going, no only should women be included, but we should just re-institute the draft and force everyone to do 3 years of military service. Make some real men and women out of all these 20 year old children.

 

[Jeff Miller]

So even though the Constitution does not say we can have a draft and the federal government is supposed to be limited to what is expressly written in the Constitution, we have had drafts in the past, so we would need an amendment to not have one in the future. Even though slavery is unconstitutional which the draft clearly would be an example of slavery.

no

 

[Goatman Saint]

personally, the way this younger generation is going, no only should women be included, but we should just re-institute the draft and force everyone to do 3 years of military service. Make some real men and women out of all these 20 year old children.

Imagine all the countries we could invade then. Yee haw

 

[Flipx99]

Well, it's not. By that logic we would have to be ok with absolutely anything they do.

Well, you also might not think that a provision that grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes," would not be sufficient authority for Congress to tell a farmer that he can't grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption.