Posted on 11/12/2003 9:49:33 AM PST by hsmomx3
Anyone hear about this?
"The Universal National Service Act of 2003 "amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females" and declares "that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service"
But it doesn't, therefore you have no leg to stand on.
You go get selective service to require females to regester, then we'll talk.
No, I would say that YOU don't get it. Involuntary servitude is not cheap, either for the government or the individuals involved. It is a profoundly stupid idea and accentuate many of the things that are currently wrong with the government. One of the things that makes the US military great is that it is semi-privatized in the sense that it isn't a mandatory social program. And we really don't have a need for this kind of program anyway; it reeks of another socialist boondoggle that will suck money and deliver few results.
Will it stop a young persons career ambitions? No, it will not "stop" them in the average case, but it will impact them economically over the long run any way you slice it. It is, in effect, another kind of tax. I've seen the effectiveness of such programs in countries that actually do this, and the effect it has on the young adults that go through it; we don't want to be inflicting the same mess on our own young adults. Involuntary servitude is bullshit; it is the same reason conservatives nominally abhor taxes.
And before you get all self-righteous about your uncle being in the military or some such nonsense, I am a former combat soldier in Uncle Sam's Army who understands precisely how these things work. I was motivated because I chose to do it, and the military actively states that they do not want anybody in it that doesn't want to be there. It is why they will terminate service contracts of people who want out even though their contract isn't up. A soldier that doesn't want to be their is worse than a soldier who isn't there at all.
Unlike many armchair warriors, I recognize that military service has a real cost associated with it that is detrimental to the individual in many cases. Many people have no business being in the military and the US would not be served well by forcing them to be there. That aside, it is horribly inefficient economically and the US does not need yet another drag on its economy.
Could you define either term?
-ANdY
If someone makes you bust rocks at gunpoint for 5 years and pays you a buck, you aren't a slave?
The issue is not whether the person affected considers it an honor (you are now free to sign up for that honor, which you haven't).
The issue is whether the person affected has a choice in the matter (there is no honor in "serve or be jailed").
"Alternative national service" equals "socialist make-work programs". A big freaking waste of money, and arguably worse than just a military impress.
And it is you who are frothing at the mouth. Wipe the spittle off your monitor and take a break.
You are "thinking" with your emotions. I think your "inner liberal" has orchestrated a coup of your brain.
Your ignorance is breathtaking. There's a hugh difference between serving your country and slavery for cryin' out loud.
I live in the homeport community that is proud to have the opportunity to host the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. I see daily the benefits of military service. The work and other opportunities offered to the enlistee's and draftee's too if it were so, cannot be described in anyway as slavish.
There's other ways a person could serve their Country too and none of it requires being subjugated. Consider the words; Honor Duty Country.
Using your logic concerning a draft, then compulsory education is slavery.
Nope, I didn't sign up and now regret that very much. But comparing military service to slavery is warped, at the very least.
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). The Court's analysis, in full, of the Thirteenth Amendment issue raised by a compulsory military draft was the following: ''As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.'' Id. at 390. While the Supreme Court has never squarely held that conscription need not be premised on a declaration of war, indications are that the power is not constrained by the need for a formal declaration of war by ''the great representative body of the people.'' During the Vietnam War (an undeclared war) the Court, upholding a conviction for burning a draft card, declared that the power to classify and conscript manpower for military service was ''beyond question.'' United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968). See also United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1968) (''the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiency, is not limited by either the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency''), cert. denied 391 U.S. 956 .
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.