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

[JakeStarkey]

Intense is not making any sense here. There is no question that the final say on the matter is SCOTUS, not the states. That Intense does not like it is certainly his right but who cares but his opinion is his but bears on no one else. Whereas, SCOTUS decides, period.

We can disagree for that's our right, but we disobey at our own peril.

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

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.

Not many of you bothered to exert the effort to read the bill, I see. We've had drafts before, and the only name attached to the bill is Rangel, so attaching Obama's name to it is assuming a lot. If having the draft again is Obama Youth, than Lincoln had his Lincoln Youth during the Civil War. It's also not being forced to stay in the army until they were forty-two. The period of national service is for two years, with some exceptions as the bill stipulates.

Edit: Ah wait, Baruch was probably referring to Obama's call for increased volunteer-ship in things like the Peace Corps. My bad. But the point remains, the idea of Obama wanting an Obama Youth is ludicrous, because the video Immanuel posted didn't show the rest of the speech, and took it out of context.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Watch me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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:

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.

Not many of you bothered to exert the effort to read the bill, I see. We've had drafts before, and the only name attached to the bill is Rangel, so attaching Obama's name to it is assuming a lot. If having the draft again is Obama Youth, than Lincoln had his Lincoln Youth during the Civil War. It's also not being forced to stay in the army until they were forty-two. The period of national service is for two years, with some exceptions as the bill stipulates.

Edit: Ah wait, Baruch was probably referring to Obama's call for increased volunteer-ship in things like the Peace Corps. My bad. But the point remains, the idea of Obama wanting an Obama Youth is ludicrous, because the video Immanuel posted didn't show the rest of the speech, and took it out of context.

Excuse me? Where did I say anything about that? I just commented that it would be harder to justify mandatory national service than it is a draft.

 

[R.C. Christian]

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

The difference here is that this is one of Obama and his henchmen's key ideas for the U.S. going forward eventhough it took the notoriously dirty crook Rangel to put it out there.

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

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.

Not many of you bothered to exert the effort to read the bill, I see. We've had drafts before, and the only name attached to the bill is Rangel, so attaching Obama's name to it is assuming a lot. If having the draft again is Obama Youth, than Lincoln had his Lincoln Youth during the Civil War. It's also not being forced to stay in the army until they were forty-two. The period of national service is for two years, with some exceptions as the bill stipulates.

Edit: Ah wait, Baruch was probably referring to Obama's call for increased volunteer-ship in things like the Peace Corps. My bad. But the point remains, the idea of Obama wanting an Obama Youth is ludicrous, because the video Immanuel posted didn't show the rest of the speech, and took it out of context.

Excuse me? Where did I say anything about that? I just commented that it would be harder to justify mandatory national service than it is a draft.

Oh hello Quantum, have you ever met Quantum?

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.

 

[JWBooth]

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

Involuntary servitude. Yep, now there is a real progressive idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not many of you bothered to exert the effort to read the bill, I see. We've had drafts before, and the only name attached to the bill is Rangel, so attaching Obama's name to it is assuming a lot. If having the draft again is Obama Youth, than Lincoln had his Lincoln Youth during the Civil War. It's also not being forced to stay in the army until they were forty-two. The period of national service is for two years, with some exceptions as the bill stipulates.

Edit: Ah wait, Baruch was probably referring to Obama's call for increased volunteer-ship in things like the Peace Corps. My bad. But the point remains, the idea of Obama wanting an Obama Youth is ludicrous, because the video Immanuel posted didn't show the rest of the speech, and took it out of context.

Excuse me? Where did I say anything about that? I just commented that it would be harder to justify mandatory national service than it is a draft.

Oh hello Quantum, have you ever met Quantum?

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.

Yes, I said that, but that is still not anything like Obama's youth, which, as you said, was separate issue. Or are you going to try and claim that Rangell's bill doesn't apply to people over 40?

 

[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

The difference here is that this is one of Obama and his henchmen's key ideas for the U.S. going forward eventhough it took the notoriously dirty crook Rangel to put it out there.

This is NOT President Obama's "Civilian Defense Force" at least not yet. It will take plenty of amendments to make it into a CDF bill. All this is at the moment is a reinstitution of the draft. Rangel's been trying to get that passed for years.

Immie

 

[editec]

I didn't hear the conservatives bitching when I was getting drafted, folks.

Per usual, your inability to understand your world stems from your inability to remember even recent history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far righties are merely politicizing an issue that they defended for decades. They are easily dismissed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I could not disagree more. Few, very few, Americans take voting seriously - most vote on the emotion of the moment - usually fear or greed.

 

[Intense]

Intense is not making any sense here. There is no question that the final say on the matter is SCOTUS, not the states. That Intense does not like it is certainly his right but who cares but his opinion is his but bears on no one else. Whereas, SCOTUS decides, period.

We can disagree for that's our right, but we disobey at our own peril.

In an Oligarchy the Court might be the final word, cupcake. In a Constitutional Republic, the people are. Nothing to wet your diaper over. I know that you have decided and decreed, all that is, and is not, Spanky, just look at me as the fly in the ointment. You are dismissed, go back to sleep now, when you wake, you will remember none of this and continue in your delusion.

Hey, maybe for fun, we can come up with more ways for the Federal Government to charge us for more services they refuse to deliver??? Keep on keeping on Jake.

 

[Intense]

I didn't hear the conservatives bitching when I was getting drafted, folks.

Per usual, your inability to understand your world stems from your inability to remember even recent history.

I side with Tommy Franks on the draft issue. It's not worth it. "American Soldier", good read.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/American-Soldier-General-Tommy-Franks/dp/0060731583]Amazon.com: American Soldier (9780060731588): General Tommy…[/ame]

You should really examine your Profiling issue.

 

[Intense]

The far righties are merely politicizing an issue that they defended for decades. They are easily dismissed.

Justice?
Righteousness?
Inalienable Rights?
Life?
Liberty?
The Pursuit Of Happiness?
The Right To Own Property?
Personal Responsibility?
Personal Accountability?
One Person, One Vote?
2+2+4?
Yes means Yes?
No means No?

..... I couldn't agree more Jake!!!

 

[Intense]

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.

I could not disagree more. Few, very few, Americans take voting seriously - most vote on the emotion of the moment - usually fear or greed.

Personally I think that most focus more on what they can get for a vote, rather than what is good, fair, and just. Somebody has to pay, alway's. Entitlement has corrupted the system, as much as it has corrupted our values. Nothing comes without effort.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Maybe we do, but if you want to change the constitution or create a whole new one you must do that per the rules in the old one.

My fear is that if something like that were done our new constitution would see is us far less free than the old one. Given the extent to which our politicians have ignored the current constitution can you not imagine what they would do if they could put it in writiing?

 

[editec]

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

The difference here is that this is one of Obama and his henchmen's key ideas for the U.S. going forward eventhough it took the notoriously dirty crook Rangel to put it out there.

It's NOT going forward.

Rengel has been proposing this idea for a long long time and it goes NOWHERE.

Nor should it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why NOT a draft? I am generally against conscription, BUT, we are witnessing constant wars with no one paying for them monetarily or personally.

If these neonons and right wing warmongers want war, then WHY shouldn't THEIR kids go fight them...

Robert Kennedy in his last campaign chastised rich kids getting deferments and shirking their responsibilities as citizens.

If there were a draft, maybe we would have a REAL debate and dialogue about war?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far righties are merely politicizing an issue that they defended for decades. They are easily dismissed.

Justice?
Righteousness?
Inalienable Rights?
Life?
Liberty?
The Pursuit Of Happiness?
The Right To Own Property?
Personal Responsibility?
Personal Accountability?
One Person, One Vote?
2+2+4?
Yes means Yes?
No means No?

..... I couldn't agree more Jake!!!

Strawman argument on the extra points there, Intense. We are talking the draft, but if we were discussing those extra points, the righties fail on most of the issues that you listed. But make a defense for them is you wish, but give us some facts, evidence, analysis, etc., because your opinion is not evidence.