Amendment 13 And A Military Draft

[TheHammer]

Quote Amendment 13: 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.


I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.


The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.


Why am I wrong?

 

[Master PO]

conscription by the federal government occurred before the 13th amendment was ever created, the U.S. Civil War

conscription violates the founding principles of America, however the federal government has done that many times.

 

[joG]

Quote Amendment 13: 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.


I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.


The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.


Why am I wrong?

The most fundamental reason to form a state is to produce security. Nothing else measures up to this public good and nobody can really be considered a citizen that does not support its production.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Quote Amendment 13: 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.


I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.


The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.


Why am I wrong?

You are wrong.

Read all the way through article one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

IMHO, the draft is constitutional only if applied regardless of gender. Like many laws it seems to have as many (or more) exceptions than rules.

 

[Visbek]

Why am I wrong?

1) Because soldiers are not slaves.

2) Because the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to declare war and raise an army.

Seems like the issue is pretty much settled.

 

[Mr Person]

conscription by the federal government occurred before the 13th amendment was ever created, the U.S. Civil War

conscription violates the founding principles of America, however the federal government has done that many times.

The founders specifically intended to avoid the problems the Articles of Confederation created for the ability to defend the nation. They ability to script was fully intended. See also post #6.

Meanwhile, the thirteenth amendment was not aimed at the military. Good lord!




And, please, just stop trying to post about the constitution. Just about every time, your post ends up being completely wrong.

 

[TheHammer]

conscription by the federal government occurred before the 13th amendment was ever created, the U.S. Civil War

conscription violates the founding principles of America, however the federal government has done that many times.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That's all irrelevant as related to the definitions of "slavery" and "involuntary servitude."

 

[Master PO]

The founders specifically intended to avoid the problems the Articles of Confederation created for the ability to defend the nation. They ability to script was fully intended. See also post #6.

Meanwhile, the thirteenth amendment was not aimed at the military. Good lord!




And, please, just stop trying to post about the constitution. Just about every time, your post ends up being completely wrong.

i wish you would read better and understand what is being said, because you show you don't even know whats going on, so your posting showed real stupidity.

the OP bought up the 13th because of involuntary servitude........ not me.

the OP is making the claim that conscription is not legal because its involuntary servitude.

conscription by the federal government did not occur until civil war and conscription violates the principles of the DOI

 

[TheHammer]

The most fundamental reason to form a state is to produce security. Nothing else measures up to this public good and nobody can really be considered a citizen that does not support its production.

So it's patriotic to accept every war that the politicians fancy and allowing them to enslave you to it at the risk of your life is totally OK, smart and sane, right?

 

[TheHammer]

You are wrong.

Read all the way through article one.

I have several times. Your argument is?

 

[Fishking]

1) Because soldiers are not slaves.

2) Because the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to declare war and raise an army.

Seems like the issue is pretty much settled.

If you're forced to be a Soldier, you're a slave. This is different than volunteering to be a Soldier.

 

[TheHammer]

IMHO, the draft is constitutional only if applied regardless of gender. Like many laws it seems to have as many (or more) exceptions than rules.

It's OK to enslave citizens to the possible and even likely risk of losing their lives or limbs as long as BIG daddy government doesn't discriminate between the sexual genders, right?

 

[Fishking]

Quote Amendment 13: 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Supreme Court precedent dictates in a “supposed” land of the brave and the “FREE,” that a military draft is constitutional.

I have read many of the what I call excuses for that court decision and find them absurd and some even laughable.

The elementary text of amendment 13 makes is perfectly clear to me that until or unless a constitutional amendment is authored, offered and passed by the Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make an exception for military conscription as is now prohibited by amendment 13, forcing Americans or anybody to serve in the United States military against their will is slavery and or involuntary servitude and totally unconstitutional regardless of any absurd excuses politicians and courts can come up with.

Why am I wrong?

I think you have a solid premise and for a draft to actually be constitutional, they should have to pass an actual amendment to allow it. Also, if we are at the point where a draft is actually need for our security/survival, as many people here are using as an excuse (Hint: Vietnam didn't qualify), then they should have no problem getting enough support to pass said amendment.

 

[joG]

So it's patriotic to accept every war that the politicians fancy and allowing them to enslave you to it at the risk of your life is totally OK, smart and sane, right?

I don't believe I said that even remotely.

 

[Master PO]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That's all irrelevant as related to the definitions of "slavery" and "involuntary servitude."

if the issue came before the USSC, then they would look at conscription as an act which took place before the 13th, so IMO i don't think the 13th claim would work.

 

[TheHammer]

1) Because soldiers are not slaves.

2) Because the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to declare war and raise an army.

Seems like the issue is pretty much settled.

If a soldier is forced to serve in a war against his/her will, why is that not "involuntary servitude?"

A Congress is not able to declare wars and raise armies without enslaving citizens to serve involuntarily in the military because?

 

[Port & Starboard]

I have several times. Your argument is?

Article one covers it pretty clearly to me.

There is always Canada as option II for those who don't want to serve.

 

[TheHammer]

The founders specifically intended to avoid the problems the Articles of Confederation created for the ability to defend the nation. They ability to script was fully intended. See also post #6.

All of that is irrelevant to the elementary definitions of the elementary text of amendment 13. The Amendment says what it says. What does it say to you?

Meanwhile, the thirteenth amendment was not aimed at the military. Good lord!

The "Good lord" knows and so do I that nothing in the Constitution and specifically amendment 13 says that the military was to be exempt from imposing involuntary servitude/slavery upon the citizens.

And, please, just stop trying to post about the constitution. Just about every time, your post ends up being completely wrong.

You'll of course supply evidence of that, right? I'll wait!

 

[TheHammer]

I think you have a solid premise and for a draft to actually be constitutional, they should have to pass an actual amendment to allow it. Also, if we are at the point where a draft is actually need for our security/survival, as many people here are using as an excuse (Hint: Vietnam didn't qualify), then they should have no problem getting enough support to pass said amendment.

I am of the opinion that "IF" America is attacked, no draft would be necessary, and if it is, the nation probably isn't worth defending. WWII never really needed a draft. Voluntary enlistment was off of the chart.

 

[TheHammer]

I don't believe I said that even remotely.

The most fundamental reason to form a state is to produce security. Nothing else measures up to this public good and nobody can really be considered a citizen that does not support its production.

Interpret please!

 

[TheHammer]

if the issue came before the USSC, then they would look at conscription as an act which took place before the 13th, so IMO i don't think the 13th claim would work.

Slavery came before the 13th, so it doesn't work for slavery?

 

[TheHammer]

Article one covers it pretty clearly to me.

There is always Canada as option II for those who don't want to serve.

So, you can't articulate how and why Article one covers it for you? Amusing!

 

[Gaius46]

If a soldier is forced to serve in a war against his/her will, why is that not "involuntary servitude?"

A Congress is not able to declare wars and raise armies without enslaving citizens to serve involuntarily in the military because?

The reconstruction amendments dealt specifically with abolishing the institution of slavery and the drafters of those amendments, or pretty much anyone else, would not have seen conscription as being a form of slavery.

 

[gdgyva]

I am of the opinion that "IF" America is attacked, no draft would be necessary, and if it is, the nation probably isn't worth defending. WWII never really needed a draft. Voluntary enlistment was off of the chart.

so the only war worth fighting is where we are attacked?

no humanitarian causes are worth our effort?

no global dictators are worth stopping unless they attack us first?

just trying to get your stance on what is and isnt our role in the world as it stands today

i know a lot of people feel we should become isolationsist, and let other countries fend for themselves

are you of that mindset?