Posted on 08/13/2020 11:26:11 AM PDT by BenLurkin
A federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the constitutionality of the all-male military draft system Thursday, citing a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said “only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.”
The case was argued in March and was the result of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men and two men challenging the male-only draft. Their arguments had been that the the 1981 case was decided at a time when women were largely absent from combat.
There was no dissent in Thursday’s ruling from a three-judge panel. Plaintiffs in the case could seek a rehearing before the full court or go to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.com ...
America was a very different country back in 1981.
It seems appropriate that this obligation be shared by both sexes.
My opinion on the Draft is the same opinion that Robert A Heinlein has, and that is all I will say on it.
“its not a draft”
Not buying that. If I can be pressed into service against my will, that’s a draft.
“Secondly, the whole point of the suit is not to include women (which will never happen). Its to kill the selective service...”
Well, the government should have considered that before they created a legal situation where their draft law is in conflict with their civil rights laws. I’m not cutting them a break because they were incompetent.
” Its the males role to defend the house. Now regardless of what you want to define the females roles, MEN should not find excuses for dodging that role.”
I actually agree with you there, but the government does not, and this is an issue with our laws and government, not our personal beliefs. If the government says we must be treated equally, then the government must treat us equally, period. It can’t pick and choose to do so only when it is convenient. If we don’t want the government to be so indiscriminate, then the proper solution is to change the laws that create this stupid situation, rather than pretend that the contradiction doesn’t exist if we just don’t address it.
Golly, it sounds like you want the US to have a military dedicated to winning the country’s wars.
The courts make bad decisions all the time, including this one.
So, the black robes are OK with Kampala Harris being President and ordering men into combat, but they don’t want her ordered into combat?
Seems kind of unfair.
First, its not a draft. Its the first step, having a call up roster, should we ever find ourselves in WWIII.
Second, civil rights law post dates the draft and military history of this country by many decades.
Third, if you want to stand there and justify drafting women into combat because you have chosen at this moment to correct one of hundreds of contradictions of law, then I stand by my initial comments, and now will say you are whining like a pussy and not a real man. Is that what you are doing?
Either women get drafted or they shouldn’t vote imo.
Or we could abolish the draft for both sexes. Congress hasn't formally declared war since WWII, therefore if the FedGov wants Americans to die in these so-called "police actions" it can make the case for Americans to enlist.
So which would you want for your daughter?
I agree with you. They will not be forced into certain roles they are not well suited for, but they will be forced to serve in some capacity.
Well, its multiple courts, first the USSC and then upheld in a lower court, so they got it wrong and you are the oracle. Got it.
You don’t have to be an oracle to notice that two laws that explicitly contradict each other create an untenable legal situation that must eventually be resolved. That’s just common sense.
How about this: no possibility to be drafted equals no eligibility to vote in national elections. I say this as a former draftee - one of the last ones.
Obviously Heinlein has skewed my thinking that the right to vote is a right to be earned by at least being subject to the draft. Actual military service would be a better voting qualification, but I have to be realistic. Women interested in voting could voluntarily surrender their draft exemption and register for the draft.
You also dont have to be an oracle to know right from wrong. Looking for right from wrong in legality can be a lost cause. Its the whole God will vs sinful man’s will thing...
“its not a draft. Its the first step...”
Yes, the first step of a DRAFT. Just as gun registration is the first step of gun confiscation, or killing voter ID laws is the first step of vote fraud. Trying to deny the obvious connection might work on some people, but it’s not going to work on me, so you might as well just give it up.
“Second, civil rights law post dates the draft...”
That’s not a valid legal argument. If anything, later laws generally SUPERCEDE earlier laws, which actually makes your position worse.
“if you want to stand there and justify drafting women into combat...”
I guess you missed the last part of my post where I said I agreed with you on that point. So I’ll repeat that I don’t want to draft women into combat. However, if we are going to have a draft law that excludes women, then we cannot also have a civil rights law that demands the federal government not discriminate on the basis of sex. Those laws are in direct, explicit contradiction to each other and the situation cannot stand.
“You also dont have to be an oracle to know right from wrong.”
I agree, and it is wrong when the government talks out of both sides of its mouth and fails to hold itself to the same principles it demands everyone else adhere to.
Gee, that means we can exclude the other 56 genders.
Im not a lawyer so I'll let other lawyers address how and when precedent matters. But I dont want to accuse you of being naive enough to believe that a law passed today obviates or is more relevant than a previous law, just because its in conflict. Thats a living constitution argument. No, the conflict is eventually resolved by court. In this case it seems it has been, twice.
I'm glad you are not calling for women to be drafted. So what is it you are calling for. If you are going to complain about something, offer a solution. Whats yours? I suspect its either include women in the selective service, or eliminate it. Both of those options are worse than the men of this country growing a pair and taking on the responsibilities that God and country entrust them with.
Honestly, I dont see what the problem is. The girly men today are all going to run for Canada anyway.
I agree here. Much broader and different subject than an argument over selective service legality.
If I was still in the military I would have no problem with a woman in the next cubicle but when it comes to a woman in the next foxhole, hell no!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.