Universal National Service Act of 2003

Congressional Record ^

[MineralMan]

"Korea and Vietnam both are good examples of why we should not have a draft without a declaration of war by the Congress like the Constitution says.
"

Actually, the Constitution says nothing about the draft. It does say, however, that the government has the authority to "raise armies." The SCOTUS, in 1918, according to the cite posted above, said that the draft was a necessary means for doing just that.

Neither Korea nor Vietnam could have been carried out without the draft. Granted, we won neither of those conflicts, but we would not have done even as well as we did without the draft.

Sadly, you are incorrect regarding the constitutionality of the draft. You have an opinion, but it is not shared by the SCOTUS, the arbiter of the Constitution, as defined by the Constitution itself.

So, did you serve?

[templar]

You said to MineralMan " If you had really wanted to defend you way of life and thinking you would have found a better fit in the red army."

I think your WAY out of line here guy. What's your service?

[Wallace T.]

Please note my comments on post #29. The Supreme Court was not intended to a secular Papacy, and its interpretations of the Constitution have varied over the years, based on the political philosophy of the Court's members. Was segregation of schools Constitutional in 1896 but un-Constitutional in 1956? Were minimum wage laws un-Constitutional in 1935 but Constitutional in 1943? Was abortion not a "woman's right" in 1873 but a "woman's right" in 1973?

I, for one, am not going to cling to the theory of stare decisis when we are dealing with the judicial activism of jurists like Earl Warren or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose beliefs are poles apart from those of the Framers, even from men like Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a broad interpretation of its provisions. Either we follow the Constitution as originally intended, as delineated in The Federalist Papers and the debates in the various legislatures at the time of the Constitution's adoption or we amend it by the procedures outlined in that document. Otherwise, we should scrap it and end the pretense we are a nation of laws.

[MineralMan]

"Wars, today, have no end, no purpose, and no meaning. "

Then I take it that you are opposed to our attacking Iraq? Or is that not a war, in your opinion?

[walden]

No, I'm done. Anyone who thinks that the federal government is the preferred employer, and that the creation of a huge new federal bureaucracy is a good idea just isn't a conservative, and I learned a LONG time ago never to argue with liberals. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of a thing just puts off the day when the kids get kicked out into the real world to get a real job. Nothing you could say would convince me that this is a good idea-- it's clearly a liberal Democratic idea proposed in order to create opposition to the war.

And, as I said, $80 billion is a conservative estimate-- the size of bureaucracy it would take to manage such a program ensures that this idiocy would cost MUCH more than that.

[templar]

The problem is that our current goobermint doesn't know what a war is

I agree. My idea of conducting a war is to identify the enemy, locate him, kill him and come home. Soldiers return to civilian life between wars. I believe in universal military training to insure that every man in the US (and I do NOT like the idea of women having to serve) is capable and ready to go into combat with a minimum of additional preparedness. For those who find it impossible to serve on religious grounds, physical condition, etc., I would provide non military training in counter terrorism and essential skills to secure the home front while those who can fight do so.

[templar]

Either we follow the Constitution as originally intended, as delineated in The Federalist Papers and the debates in the various legislatures at the time of the Constitution's adoption or we amend it by the procedures outlined in that document

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Supreme Court deciding issues of the constituitiion is intended in the constitution. And the consitituion is ammended by the priocess described in the constitution. Untill we have an ammendment altering, regulating, or abolishing the function of the USC, all of it's decisions are constitutional decisions.

[al_possum39]

Actually, the Constitution says nothing about the draft. It does say, however, that the government has the authority to "raise armies." The SCOTUS, in 1918, according to the cite posted above, said that the draft was a necessary means for doing just that.

Sadly, you are incorrect regarding the constitutionality of the draft. You have an opinion, but it is not shared by the SCOTUS, the arbiter of the Constitution, as defined by the Constitution itself.

I didn't mean to imply that the Constitution addressed a draft.

It does, however, give Congress the power to declare war. I just think the country would be more likly to support a declared war. I also think that we would try to win a declared war. Sending draftees into a war that we don't intend to win just doesn't set well with me.

So, did you serve?

Yes, I served and I volunteered at 17 so my folks had to sign for me to get in.

[tortoise]

When did you serve your country? I'm a seventh generation soldier.

What does this matter? I served in the light infantry voluntarily, and my family has been soldiers (again, voluntarily) for at least five straight generations and has fought in essentially every war in this part of the world for the last 300 years (yes, long before the US was a country).

I am adamantly against universal service. It is a stupid, short-sighted idea that would destroy half the things that are good about the current system. Like the Man said, if you can't get citizens to volunteer to defend the country, it isn't worth defending. And using it as what is essentially an indoctrination tool is so antithetical to the American ideal that it boggles the mind that anyone could think this is a good idea. Why would we want to do this anyway, so we can have an Army like France?

[Between the Lines]

I would not support a Universal Service program however I would support manditory service in a state malitia.

[rmmcdaniell]

Various fascist posts:

I think your WAY out of line here guy. What's your service?

Answer Mineral Man's question, wormboy. When did you serve your country? I'm a seventh generation soldier.

I don't think so. Service to my nation is deeply ingrained in my family. And that nation is the USA. When did you serve?

I did not serve. How does that change the fact that Mineralman's beliefs are incompatible with freedom? 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. When you come for me, I won't give a damn about whatever you did as a soldier. Just because you served this country's military does not give you any authority to go around ordering anyone else on how to serve this country outside of a military draft under emergency conditions. I am not way out of line. MineralMan's thinking is too dangerous to be refuted. His military service has bloated his ego to the point were he thinks that others owe this nation their slavery. Then there are others who think that military service puts one beyond criticism. My reply to Mineralman, questioning his service was harsh but accurate. I owe you my gratitude, but not whatever whim you would have the government force upon me. If you think that I will just roll over to any of your demands just because your ex-military and I didn’t serve, you are gravely mistaken.

[Paul C. Jesup]

and I do NOT like the idea of women having to serve

The is not the 1950's, feminists have shoving their type of equality (meaning that women are better than men) down mens' throats for two generations.

If you had a actual draft and women were NOT included, that could be the straw that broke the camel's back, you may end up with a rebellion on your hands.

[DugwayDuke]

"I say go for it by all means, neo-cons!And our pathetic 1% Libertarian vote will overnight become more than enough to sweep ALL your sorry selves from office! They ought to call this the "Universal We Don't Want to Be Re-elected Act" LOL!!"

The reason the libertarians are so pathetic is their continued demonstration of their ignorance. This bill was introduced by Ernest Hollings. One doesn't normally find his name associated with neo-conservatism.

[MineralMan]

"I did not serve. How does that change the fact that Mineralman's beliefs are incompatible with freedom? 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."

Here's some info for you. It's not just liberals proposing such universal service:

On December 20, 2001, Representatives Nick Smith (R-MI) and Curt Weldon (R-PA) introduced a bill into the House of Representatives which would require the induction of all young men between the ages of 18-22 into the Armed Forces to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year. Young women in this age group would be permitted to volunteer.

[rellimpank]

"military draft out of national necessity"--to further explain for those from Rio Linda, if my grandchild is to be drafted into the military out of true national necessity, I'll give them a ride to the recruiting office to enlist and see if I can myself.

If "national service " is to be carrying bedpans for AIDS "victims", cleaning up roadsides, building spotted owl habitat, etc., while being indoctrinated in Marxist values by some minion of Hillary Clinton, I'll help the kid escape to somewhere--anywhere--

[RightWhale]

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

This won't be a problem. Everyone breaks some law or other every day. Anybody who drives a car breaks the law all the time. A national blanket indictment and conviction and there it is. Letter of the law.

[ThinkDifferent]

Seems to me that a Universal Service program could supply the manpower needed to patrol and enforce our immigration laws, as well as doing all those other things that need doing, like filling the darned potholes in every highway in the USA.

If potholes need filling, why can't the proper authorities simply offer a competitive wage for those jobs? Why must they be empowered to compel people to perform those tasks at gunpoint?

[ThinkDifferent]

If "national service " is to be carrying bedpans for AIDS "victims", cleaning up roadsides, building spotted owl habitat, etc., while being indoctrinated in Marxist values

Excellent point. We rightly decry the leftist indoctrination in government schools. What makes anyone think that a government-run "service" program would be any different?

[MineralMan]

"If potholes need filling, why can't the proper authorities simply offer a competitive wage for those jobs? Why must they be empowered to compel people to perform those tasks at gunpoint?"

Good question, but they don't, do they? And who's saying Universal Service would be an unpaid position, anyhow? Not me, certainly. We're not fixing the potholes now, are we?

[freeeee]

This bill was introduced by Ernest Hollings.

I know. I looked it up.

One doesn't normally find his name associated with neo-conservatism.

Really. Funny, there seems to be no shortage of neo-cons on this thread that think Hollings slavery bill is a good idea.