The SCOTUS has already ruled at least a few times on the constitutionality of the military draft, and its conclusions differ from yours. They held that the draft was constitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause in that it was deemed necessary and proper in order for Congress to fulfill its constitutional power to raise an army and navy and other military services. That power superseded any Thirteenth Amendment consideration of involuntary servitude because, according to the SCOTUS, it was in the original Constitution and was not explicitly overridden by the Amendment.
I don't necessarily disagree with the argument that a military draft is involuntary servitude, but merely point out that there is already established constitutional law on this question.
SCOTUS has ruled Obamacare legal, too. SCOTUS us wrong alot. What do you expect, anyway? Why would they deny such shiny toys to the central government? They are the central government.
“They held that the draft was constitutional under the ‘necessary and proper’ clause in that it was deemed necessary and proper in order to fulfilled its constitutional power to raise an army and navy”
No, it would have ruled it was necessary for that reason. It ruled it proper by pretending the 13th amendment didn’t exist. It wasn’t necessary to draft people in order to raise an army and navy, of course. Lincoln, Wilson, FRD, et al had armies and navies already and also called fir volunteers. What was necessary in their mibds was to raise an army of a size appropriate to fight the wars they wanted to fight, for which volunteers were insufficient.
But that’s not the goal to which the necessary and proper test applies. Too bad, the Constitution doesn’t grant Congress the power to “raise and maintain an army and navy by whatever means possible for the mission you have in mind.” It only empowers them to raise armed forces, purely and simply.
“That power superceded any Thirteenth Amendment consideration...because...it was in the original Constitution and was not explicitly overridden by the Amendment.”
Balderdash! (Not that it wasn’t their reasoning, but that it is nonsense.) That is about the worst legal reasoning I’ve ever heard. First of all the draft wasn’t in the original Constitution. Secondly, earlier sections do not have precedence. Thirdly, assuming the draft power is in the original portion, oh yes it was explicitly overridden. What the heck else does a ban on involuntary servitude mean? If the draft isn’t involuntary servitude, I don’t know what is.
If they meant the 13th amendment didn’t say verbatim “article so and so, section blah blah is hereby null and void,” well, no, it didn’t. I might say this is so because there was no such thing as draft power. But since when did it have to, anyway? The older clause doesn’t get the benefit of Constitutionality just because it’s older. Show me one other examle where that’s the case.
Want to know what really happened? SCOTUS was applying the phantom emergency clause. When we’re at war or otherwise in a state of emergency, which we have been continuously for about 80 years, unspecified powers pop up with only a vague connection to enumerated ones.
Established court precedence, yes. Constitutional law, no. Throw it on the ash heap with Obamacare, Kelo, Wickard, Helvering, Dred Scott, Korematsu, Penn Central Transportation, Bakke, Roe, Shreveport Rate Cases, Butler, Raich, Home Building and Loan, Buckley, McConnell, Gold Clause Cases, Carolene Products, Bollinger, etc.
Reinstatement of the draft is an old Demwit goal, going back to Carter (who actually got draft registration reimplemented). It’s only appropriate during wartime. Thanks justiceseeker93.