Posted on 02/14/2003 11:52:24 AM PST by floridarocks
Universal service for males and females ages 18-26. New Senate Bill s.89. Can see it at http://thomas.loc.gov
If they won't fight, let them build infrastructure (highways and other stuff).
Of course I would put this in a better manner. No voting until a term of service is completed.
If you pay taxes it's involuntary non-military servitude.
So ... how many tax agents have you killed ??
If you say zero then you're being s hypocrite. Talk is cheap, don't take a position that you're not ready to back up with force.
What Mineralman proposed is slavery. If you doubt my assertion that slavery is incompatible with freedom I'd love to hear how you think so.
And, BTW, I suggest you don't threaten to kill me if we should ever meet in person. It would quite likely have a negative result for you.
Unless you try to do what was proposed you have nothing to worry about. If you wan't to get tyrannical on me, I'll make sure your dead first.
Actually I volunteered USMC in 89 fully expecting to go to war (expected Russians, got Iraqis). Desert Shield/Storm 90-91.
So, once again, how many IRS agents have you killed ? None ? Then STFU and stop making threats on this board.
LOL!!! Hope we meet some day so I can watch you wet your pants. And the Draft is not slavery it the constitutional right to raise an army. You hit every single liberal identifier I can think of, name calling, mindless threats, attacking the messenger when you dono't like the message and have no factual rebuttal, sluring and slandering your opposition, stating your personal opinion as fact without anything to back it up, you name it. You know what they say, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's a duck.
Yes. Ask the police. I feel no sympathy for speeders when the police deliver their rewards. Or when they kill themselves or end up in prison for killing someone else.
As should those who pass or attempt to enforce laws infringing upon the Rights of Free men and women.
This statement sounds like it could easily be construed as a terroristic threat under much of the recently passed legislation. I would suggest that you strongly clarify yorself if you didn't mean it this way. We live in times that make it unwise to make threats on politicians and law enforcement, even from behind a screen name. And if you did mean it as a threat, well, like I mentioned earlier, you should be willing to accept the consequences for doing so.
The Constitution gives the President the authority to call the militia into service. However, the examples of the three Federal military actions I cited indicate that the intention was to call the organized militia, trained, part-time soldiers. That the training and discipline of the militia, including the appointment of officers, was to be a matter for the states to handle indicates that the original intent of the Framers was for the organizing of the militia to be a state matter. In other words, the states had the common law authority to conscript men. This power was not passed on to the Feds in the original language of the Constitution. Further, given the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments restricting Federal authority to what was delineated in the Constitution, this power could not be imputed,
Raising an army clearly implied creation of a professional military, such as the European states had. A professional military is one that is a voluntary service, a contractual agreement between the officer or soldier and his government. In the 18th Century, all the European nations, with the possible exception of Prussia, had such armies. That is the context in which the Framers wrote the clause "to raise armies."
That the Federal government utilized the draft in the Civil War, the World Wars, and the Cold War era does not indicate that the politicians were conforming to the original intent of the Constitution. Rather, the approach has been the same "living document" and "implied powers" balderdash that has transformed our form of government from a limited Federal government with most powers resting with the states and people to an almost unlimited central one with the states and people subject to the whims of Washington bureaucrats. If we conservatives decry the abuse of the "implied powers" and "living document" legal theories to establish minimum wages, environmental regulations, affirmative action, etc., we need to be consistent, even when the cause is good, e.g., the raising of armies for the protection of the nation.
You must be talking about taxes.
I, for one, see a great deal wrong in the assumption that doing service for the government is doing service for the country. The government isn't the country, the PEOPLE are the country. A hard-working entrepreneur who has never done military service has done more for his country in innumerable ways than most of the people who have done military service. Every private citizen who makes the effort to excel in the world protects the liberty and bolsters the strength of the United States in ways that are far stronger than merely wearing a uniform.
I served in the infantry and I've been an entrepreneur. My country gained more strength as a result of my hard work in the private sector than from my voluntary service in the Army. There is more to being part of the bedrock of the USA than wearing a government approved uniform.
Meatheads who cannot even follow debates do not intimidate me. My whole problem with Mineralman was based on his post #3
Mineralman: Personally, I have no problem whatever with a Universal Service program. It needn't just be the military, but could apply to all sorts of programs.
Had you read my post #51 you would have seen:
If there was a MILITARY draft I would go willingly. However if anyone of you tried to "draft" me for some other non-military purpose I would put a bullet in each one of your heads.
You can plainly see that I am not opposed to a military draft, but rather the kind of draft that some European countries are considering where one is conscripted into participating in the government’s pet social programs. Would you mind telling me how the government forcing me into a meals-on-wheels program is not slavery?
Yep, if they attempt this garbage, the middle class will mutiny.
They already have our kids from 4-18.
Bush better squash this right now.
Yup, Just what we need. More Government intervention in our kids lives. More indoctrination. Not enough that they get them till they're 18, now they want them till they're 26. Joy. We can't afford the 'employment opportunities' programs and 'youth services' programs we have, much less quintuple the cost of our military.
Put another way, would you trust the leftist college kids currently at all the anti-war rallies with mil issued guns?
1st Session
H. R. 3598
To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 20, 2001
Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself and Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services Also, pending in the House...
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.