Draft

[ddelange]

I'd like to ask you "What part of Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime don't you understand?"

bronco, you don't interpret the Constitution for the rest of us. As set forth in the Constitution, the Supreme Court does. So I'd like to ask you: what part of the United States Supreme Court opinions that expressly held that the draft is "NOT involuntary servitude nor slavery" don't you understand? Or are you not governed by what the Supreme Court says? Or are you the individual who should decide for all the rest of us what the Constitution and the BoR's mean?

[bronco61]

ddelange, So I'd like to ask you: what part of the United States Supreme Court opinions that expressly held that the draft is "NOT involuntary servitude nor slavery" don't you understand?

ROFL! I'm glad you asked!! It's the part where they said: the draft is "NOT involuntary servitude nor slavery"

1. If I don't want to go and they make me, that is involuntary.

2. When I am being made to "serve" in the armed forces. That is "servitude".

3. Put the "Involuntary" and the "Servitude" parts together, and you have? YES! "Involuntary Servitude".


Or are you not governed by what the Supreme Court says?

I'm not. I'm governed by the Constitution. If the Supreme Court came out tomorrow and stated that we could no longer have firearms based on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, they'd be wrong on THAT one too.

Now, I'll ask YOU "What part of Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime don't you understand?"

[Zander]

It is discriminatory though, isn't it.... -- Blackhawk

Outrageously so, especially considering the sanctions and penalties imposed on non-compliant males.

I did go back and find an earlier reference. Sometimes my speed-reading lets me down. Mea culpa...

But...for what it's worth...I agree with you. -- WyldOne

That seems to be happening more and more. I think congratulations are in order for both of us.

[ddelange]

I'm not. I'm governed by the Constitution.

Since you do not respect the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, who interprets it? You? You can continue to pick and choose which laws you believe to be worth complying with; you can deny that Congress and the President have the power to enact laws that you must comply with; you can continue to ask questions that have been decided for a hundred years until you're blue in the face. . . . and consequently, you can continue being an anarchist.

[bronco61]

ddelange,

I'd be more than happy to answer your questions and continue with this debate. Unfortunately, you continue to skip my question posed to you.

Please answer my question, and we can continue this debate.

By the way, I'm not an anarchist if I believe in and wish to follow our Constitution. I can see that you don't have much understanding of their form of government.

you can deny that Congress and the President have the power to enact laws that you must comply with

I don't deny that they have the power to enact laws that I must comply with! My ONE requirement is that they be Constitutional.

NOW! I'll ask you again "What part of Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime don't you understand?"

I hope you can answer this so that we may continue with our debate.

[ddelange]

bronco:
"NOW! I'll ask you again "What part of Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime don't you understand?"

I hope you can answer this so that we may continue with our debate."

There's no more debate to be had with you. I recognize the Supreme Court to be the sole interpreter of what the Constitution and the BoR's mean (see Article III of the Constitution). It goes without saying that you don't know who should interpret the Constitution except perhaps you. It also goes without saying that you don't understand how a Republic works:
1. The people elect a President and representatives
2. The Congress passes a bill (the draft for example)
3. A citizen brings a case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the draft is "slavery" and "involuntary servitude."
3. The Supreme court rejects the argument, instead explaining that the 13th Amendment was meant to apply only to black slaves, and "badges and incidents" of slavery.
4. The people of our Republic are bound to comply with the draft law, unless/until they can convince their representatives to change their minds and vote to repeal it.

Sorry to be so elementary, but, bronco, you seem to need it.

[bronco61]

This is a bit of interesting information I found about the Civil War draft:

"Under the Union draft act men faced the possibility of conscription in July 1863 and in Mar., July, and Dec. 1864. Draft riots ensued, notably in New York in 1863. Of the 249,259 18-to-35-year-old men whose names were drawn, only about 6% served, the rest paying commutation or hiring a substitute."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/conscription.htm

[BrianW]

not even close

Great argument, I'm convinced.

It is people acting in their own best interest while not harming others that makes a free society work, not some governmental decree or a threat from Oog.

Ah, you didn't tell me to leave, you merely said I had the freedom to leave. Of course, should I choose to stay, I'm subject to conscription, which according to mob rule is law. Then again, the last time the draft was in effect, the freedom to leave for draftees was rescinded. So I'm free to leave as long as there isn't a draft, and not free to leave once there is. This circular reasoning is making me dizzy.

[bronco61]

ddelange,

Well, I'm sorry you need someone else to do your reading for you. Maybe that's why you were unable to answer my question.

Good day

[ddelange]

Well, I'm sorry you need someone else [Supreme Court] to do your reading for you. Maybe that's why you were unable to answer my question.

No, that's why I'm able to accept a Republic based upon the Rule of Law and you are able to embrace anarchy.

[Blackhawk]

Brian, this is not even close:

One gets to do what one wishes so long as one doesn't harm others.

But with this, you're getting warmer:

It is people acting in their own best interest while not harming others that makes a free society work, not some governmental decree or a threat from Oog.

Now you need to recognize that your rights stop where the rights of others begin. For example, say somebody up in Alaska has a mining claim but isn't around. You're all alone and discover that panning the claim is productive. That's in your own economic interest, but does it harm others?

[ctdonath]

Since you do not respect the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, who interprets it? You?

As long as rulings by SCOTUS are respectable, they are to be respected. There have been times, however, when SCOTUS has plainly rendered the wrong verdict, either by bias or by stupidity.

In the most recent comparison, SCONJ declared that an election law did not mean what it most plainly said (i.e.: "no new candidates on a ballot within 51 days of election" was interpreted as nonexistant). Most of the time, the people of New Jersy should consider their Supreme Court the final arbitrer of state law; however, the judges clearly abused their power and rewrote the law.

Yes, ultimately the interpretation of law comes down to each individual. We are obligated to respect SCOTUS's decision as much as possible, but if a ruling is plainly unconstitutional or absurd (and such rulings have indeed happened) then even their interpretations may be ignored. In the case at hand, conscription - i.e.: "fight for us or die" - IS "involuntary servitude", regardless of what SCOTUS rules.

[ddelange]

Yes, ultimately the interpretation of law comes down to each individual. We are obligated to respect SCOTUS's decision as much as possible, but if a ruling is plainly unconstitutional or absurd (and such rulings have indeed happened) then even their interpretations may be ignored.

Chalk up another enlistee for living under the Rule of Anarchy

[Tamara]

Chalk up another enlistee for living under the Rule of Anarchy

So, in a past life, you were returning escaped slaves to massa in accordance with the Supreme Court's rulings?

If the Supremes uphold the Constitutionality of a ban of the Second Amendment, you'd fork over your guns?

Mustn't be anarchic, now, eh?

[bronco61]

ddelange said:


No, that's why I'm able to accept a Republic based upon the Rule of Law and you are able to embrace anarchy.

You know ddelange, you're exactly right! Group me in with the few ANARCHISTS who felt that the Supreme Court decisions on the Jim Crowe laws were incorrect. They failed to follow the "rule of law". You would have been one of those people saying "Hey, the Supreme Court said it's ok, it's the rule of law so it's juuuust fine!"

WOW!!

I guess you and I are only on the same side of the 2nd Amendment argument only for as long as the Supreme Court doesn't come out and say we can't have our guns. nice


Sheesh Tamara! You beat me to it. LOL!!

[Peetmoss]

Welll I highly dought there will be a draft for anything anytime soon. And if there was as it stands now I would be to old. But I do think that if women want equal rights and responsibility in the militrary and the goverment they need to have equal risk too.

[ddelange]

So, in a past life, you were returning escaped slaves to massa in accordance with the Supreme Court's rulings?

If you've been reading this entire thread, then surely you read that I support selective civil disobedience when a significant portion of the population does as well, thus my comment that I would have supported the civil rights movement both through civil disobedience and by legislation, which ultimately resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As for your slavery quip, Northern states had laws that allowed former slaves to remain as free citizens if they reached the North, so no I would not have been returning "escaped slaves to massa." This effort remained legal until the Dred Scot decision in 1857. Partly as a result of the decision, our nation plunged into Civil War, and emerged on the other side with the passage of the 13th Amendment. But I will admit that in such an extreme example, if I was faced to comply with the Fugitive Slave Law as ratified by Dred Scott, or not comply and face the legal consequences, I would have not complied. I'm honest enough to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, even the Rule of Law, but they should remain rare exceptions that do not swallow the Rule of Law itself.

[ddelange]

If the Supremes uphold the Constitutionality of a ban of the Second Amendment, you'd fork over your guns?

The Supreme Court cannot declare the Second Amendment, or any other Amendment, unconstitutional. You'll find that it takes a constitutional amendment to change any part of the Constitution; you'll find this important process discussed in Article V of the Constitution.

[glock glockler]

Ahenry.

Give me a little help here. Supposedly, our society (50.1% of the population) says that there are things we ought to do and will force us to do, but we have no way of determining what ought to be done?

Sounds problematic to me, seeing how one person's idea of what ought to be done can differ radically from another's. It seems that what ought to be done is entirely subjective. So we are then to make that subjectivity into law?

Nah, I don't like this one bit. Put me down for the "I'll do whatever the hell I like as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights" crowd.

Also, your indentured servitude example doesn't hold water because that servent choose to enter into the period of service, the draft is a bunch of jack-booted thugs with guns saying "comply, or else".

[glock glockler]

I'm honest enough to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, even the Rule of Law, but they should remain rare exceptions that do not swallow the Rule of Law itself.

Then I guess the word of the Supreme court is not the same as the word of God. Ok, so if the SCOTUS decision is not going to be the bar we measure something by, I guess we'll need something else, how about rights?

[ddelange]

"I'll do whatever the hell I like as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights"

And who decides whether your actions "infringes" others' "rights"? You?

[ddelange]

Then I guess the word of the Supreme court is not the same as the word of God

I never said it was.

Ok, so if the SCOTUS decision is not going to be the bar we measure something by

I didn't say that either. It IS the bar by which we measure the constitutionality of laws. This is getting redundant to the point of being absurd.

I guess we'll need something else, how about rights?

"rights" are granted to the people in the Constitution, the Supreme Court still interprets the extent of those rights. If not the Supreme Court, I keep asking, then who? You?

[Tamara]

The Supreme Court cannot declare the Second Amendment, or any other Amendment, unconstitutional.

Erm, thanks for the thumbnail AmGov 101 class, but where did I say anything about the SCOTUS declaring an Amendment unconstitutional?

I referred to the SCOTUS upholding the constitutionality of a law that would effectively nullify the Second Amendment, like, oh NFA '34 or GCA '68 or the AW Ban portions of the '94 Crime Bill... (All of which infringe on your right to keep & bear arms)

"rights" are granted to the people in the Constitution,

Bzzzt! Incorrect. Rights are pre-existing, and are merely recognized by the BoR. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for details

[Ceol Mhor]

...then surely you read that I support selective civil disobedience when a significant portion of the population does as well...

Human rights are human rights, regardless of anything any majority believes. What you've been saying sounds like you would support the saving of Jews in 1940s Denmark (where the government and population were quite gung-ho to protect them) but comdemn that same action in 1940s Poland, where the general population supported the genocide to the point of helping to kill Jews themselves. Yeesh. Rights and rights are rights. Your neighbors' opinions do not change your human rights.

[ddelange]

but where did I say anything about the SCOTUS declaring an Amendment unconstitutional?

in your own words:

If the Supremes uphold the Constitutionality of a ban of the Second Amendment

You said it, not me. The Supreme Court, as I can see you realize, cannot "ban the Second Amendment" or any other Amendment.

I referred to the SCOTUS upholding the constitutionality of a law that would effectively nullify the Second Amendment, like, oh NFA '34 or GCA '68 or the AW Ban portions of the '94 Crime Bill... (All of which infringe on your right to keep & bear arms)

I agree that all of those Supreme Court decisions were wrongly decided. Reluctantly, I'll obey those laws and continue to fight for legislation to reverse those infringements. However, those decisions have hardly amounted to an "effective nullification of the Second Amendment."