• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beyond the Draft: Rethinking National Service

Jerry said:
This thread isn't about comedians or myself. We're here to discuss the OP's topic.
Click to expand...

Yes...I'm still waiting for a meaningful discussion from you, but since you won't provide it all I'm left is responding to your drivel.

You know...I'm curious how you think your proposal would fly in a court given the precedence set by the 15th and 24th Amendments. Would you care to comment?
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Yes...I'm still waiting for a meaningful discussion from you, but since you won't provide it all I'm left is responding to your drivel.
Click to expand...
I'm posting good-faith arguments. If you don't care for them, you're welcome to not respond to them.

Mycroft said:
You know...I'm curious how you think your proposal would fly in a court given the precedence set by the 15th and 24th Amendments. Would you care to comment?
Click to expand...
The 15th Amendment is interesting. It lists "previous condition of servitude". Please note that the 13th Amendment keeps slavery legal for the State. Incarceration is literally a "condition of servitude". If the 15th Amendment were in force, felons could vote. Yet Felons cannot vote. This means there is a grey aria in the 15th Amendment even for things that are listed. Note also that 'honorable completion of a term of public service' is not listed, leaving a much broader grey area.

Service is not a tax, combat service isn't even taxable, so the 24th Amendment does not apply at all.
 
Mycroft said:
Mandatory service is akin to Obamacare.
Click to expand...

It is? Care to explain that in a logical form?

I see it more as education. Nobody really goes around saying that mandatory education is "liberal", yet it is the law in all 50 states and has been for over a century. Myself, I see it as nothing more then a continuation of that.

Think of the first 12 years as the classroom aspect, and a 2 year mandatory service period as the practical exercise.
 
Oozlefinch said:
It is? Care to explain that in a logical form?

I see it more as education. Nobody really goes around saying that mandatory education is "liberal", yet it is the law in all 50 states and has been for over a century. Myself, I see it as nothing more then a continuation of that.

Think of the first 12 years as the classroom aspect, and a 2 year mandatory service period as the practical exercise.
Click to expand...

Oh...that's a good way to spin it...it's not required service, it's education. Somehow, I don't think a court is going to agree.
 
Simpleχity;1065304730 said:
Beyond the Draft: Rethinking National Service
By retired four-star general Stanley McChrystal (JSOC/ISAF)

Four reasons the defense community ought to support universal access to national service...



Thoughts on a mandatory term of national service?
Click to expand...

I oppose mandatory service. after the **** the federal and local govs. put us through and certain police officers. The thought of asking someone to "serve their country" and act like everything is ok, disgusts me. I would say show me my country and I will serve it. show me freedom before calling someone a freedom fighter. show me a country worth fighting for. or kiss me where I stink
 
hado117 said:
I oppose mandatory service. after the **** the federal and local govs. put us through and certain police officers. The thought of asking someone to "serve their country" and act like everything is ok, disgusts me. I would say show me my country and I will serve it. show me freedom before calling someone a freedom fighter. show me a country worth fighting for. or kiss me where I stink
Click to expand...
If "over yonder" is in the USA, do you think you'd be better off in another country? Which one?
 
Oozlefinch said:
Well, for over 20 years now a great many school districts (including Chicago) have mandated Community Service (unpaid) as a requirement for graduation.

High School Graduation Requirement or Credit toward Graduation — Service-Learning/Community Service

And funny, the courts seem to have no problem with that.

Next?
Click to expand...

That's at the State level...and most of those States don't have any "required" service...it's left to the individual districts.

I think things would be quite different at the Federal level...especially if such things as voting or participation if the political process were involved.
 
Mycroft said:
I think things would be quite different at the Federal level...especially if such things as voting or participation if the political process were involved.
Click to expand...

Did I mention anything about voting?

I don't think so.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Did I mention anything about voting?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Others have.

In any case, the Feds don't have the power to demand community service as a requirement to graduate HS...so your "education" spin won't work.

But tell me...do you, as a conservative, support a heavy-handed federal government? One that feels comfortable mandating that citizens do things whether they like it or not? If so, perhaps you, as a conservative, support Obamacare? Perhaps you should take a page from the left and make required community service a "tax thing".
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Others have.

In any case, the Feds don't have the power to demand community service as a requirement to graduate HS...so your "education" spin won't work.
Click to expand...

Actually, they can not demand in High School because that is as set by the Constitution a State Issue. It states quite clearly that any powers not reserved by the Federal Government are reserved to the States. And there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that talks about education (other then how it vaguely might come under "public welfare).

However, conscripion in many forms has been upheld Constitutionally a great many times over the centuries. In fact, it says quite clearly that the national defense is explicitly a mandate of the Federal Government.

And look at the things I listed. Most of them can clearly be linked directly to National Defense.

Specifically, the highway system. I think I quite clearly stated that maintaining that should be a major consideration of such a program.

And are you not aware that for almost 60 years (next year), it is officially named the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"?

The US Interstate and Highway system was specifically created as a key part of the US Defense and Military.

Now, can you make an actual claim that can be backed by Constitutional Law and facts, and not personal opinion?

And think back to the New Deal. A system that was challenged many times in court when it was enacted. And winning most every challenge because the improvements it performed was key to the defense and safety of the nation. And even decades later, we are still benefiting from the work performed over 70 years ago.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually, they can not demand in High School because that is as set by the Constitution a State Issue. It states quite clearly that any powers not reserved by the Federal Government are reserved to the States. And there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that talks about education (other then how it vaguely might come under "public welfare).

However, conscripion in many forms has been upheld Constitutionally a great many times over the centuries. In fact, it says quite clearly that the national defense is explicitly a mandate of the Federal Government.

And look at the things I listed. Most of them can clearly be linked directly to National Defense.

Specifically, the highway system. I think I quite clearly stated that maintaining that should be a major consideration of such a program.

And are you not aware that for almost 60 years (next year), it is officially named the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"?

The US Interstate and Highway system was specifically created as a key part of the US Defense and Military.

Now, can you make an actual claim that can be backed by Constitutional Law and facts, and not personal opinion?

And think back to the New Deal. A system that was challenged many times in court when it was enacted. And winning most every challenge because the improvements it performed was key to the defense and safety of the nation. And even decades later, we are still benefiting from the work performed over 70 years ago.
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY think any of that would work nowadays?

In any case, I noticed you didn't address my speculation that you might support the more liberal agenda items and their tendency to use the government to force themselves upon the citizenry...especially when it come to matter of choice.
 
Mycroft said:
In any case, I noticed you didn't address my speculation that you might support the more liberal agenda items and their tendency to use the government to force themselves upon the citizenry...especially when it come to matter of choice.
Click to expand...

Yea. Because that is your speculation, your belief, your fear.

I am sorry, I see no reason to respond to your paranoia. I can tell you all day long nobody is out to get you. It will do nothing to help you feel better however.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Yea. Because that is your speculation, your belief, your fear.

I am sorry, I see no reason to respond to your paranoia. I can tell you all day long nobody is out to get you. It will do nothing to help you feel better however.
Click to expand...

Fear?? Paranoia?? Please...don't do like that other guy and project your own problems onto me. LOL!!

All you have to do is be honest and say you don't want to answer me. I promise I won't get emotional about you avoiding a simple question.
 
Mycroft said:
Fear?? Paranoia?? Please...don't do like that other guy and project your own problems onto me. LOL!!

All you have to do is be honest and say you don't want to answer me. I promise I won't get emotional about you avoiding a simple question.
Click to expand...

Really?

Mycroft said:
you might support the more liberal agenda items and their tendency to use the government to force themselves upon the citizenry
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
do you, as a conservative, support a heavy-handed federal government? One that feels comfortable mandating that citizens do things whether they like it or not?
Click to expand...

Well, you said those things, not me.

And yea, all I see is paranoia. Good day.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Really?





Well, you said those things, not me.

And yea, all I see is paranoia. Good day.
Click to expand...

Definition
Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are "out to get them."
Paranoia | definition of paranoia by Medical dictionary

My perception of liberals and their tendency to use a heavy-handed government is not exaggerated or unfounded...it is factual. So your characterization of my perception as paranoia is in error. Also, I don't "fear" our government, but I do see reality.

So...do you still refuse to answer my question? Or do you "fear" being honest with people you are talking to?
 
I think it's an intriguing concept and has some merit on a theoretical level, but in terms of costs vs. benefits it probably doesn't make much sense for most parties involved on a practical level, at least if we define national service as mandatory military service.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I think it's an intriguing concept and has some merit on a theoretical level, but in terms of costs vs. benefits it probably doesn't make much sense for most parties involved on a practical level, at least if we define national service as mandatory military service.
Click to expand...

read what mccrystal inarticulately says; he did NOT "define national service as mandatory military service"

neither military

nor mandatory
 
National service should be mandatory in some fashion but under the guidance of the military would not be possible in view of the constant cuts in our military budget. Perhaps it should be made up of kids that are showing the tendency to break the laws and headed for a life of crime. Maybe it could prevent more youths from jam packing our prisons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom