Universal National Service Act of 2003

Congressional Record ^

[floridarocks]

Universal service for males and females ages 18-26. New Senate Bill s.89. Can see it at http://thomas.loc.gov

[MineralMan]

Thank you for the information. Since the SCOTUS is defined in the body of the Constitution as the arbiter of constitutional issues, I see no valid argument.

[MineralMan]

"I agree that it wouldn't do them any harm, but this is going to be HORRENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE. Can you imagine? It's just a giant government jobs program. I thought that was why we have fought communism all these years?"

Not in the long run, in my opinion. We have a lot of jobs that need doing, from fixing our damaged infrastructure to creating a pool of well-trained and responsible workers for our corporate and private businesses. I see Universal Service as a tool, nothing more.

Unemployment among young people is high, particularly in some demographic groups. Part of this is that many youths are completely unready to hold a job.

Futher, the costs of crimes committed by young Americans is very, very high. One advantage of Universal Service is that they would be placed in positions where they are far from the local gangs, drug dealers, etc.

I think the costs, in the long term, would be negative.

[E Rocc]

This is unconstitutional (13th amendment):

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

Also, it's prohibited under the 9th and 10th amendments.

Proposals like this make one thankful for the Second Amendment.

-Eric

[CholeraJoe]

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

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

[MineralMan]

"Answer Mineral Man's question"

I predict that no answer will be forthcoming.

[CholeraJoe]

My thoughts too.

[MineralMan]

From your page:

"I'm a part-time bouncer (which means I'm unimpressed with people who make threats from behind a keyboard.) ."

Me too.

[al_possum39]

Re: #3

I will agree on compulsory military service ONLY during a Congressional declared war. Compulsory service in the National Guard might be okay as long as they can't be activated and sent to Timbuktu without a Congressional declaration of war.

[Wallace T.]

I do not believe the Founding Fathers viewed the highest court as a sort of secular Papacy, infallible on matters of the law. Were this the case, then we are establishing relativism respective to the proper interpretation of the core document of our national government. For example, in the 1890s, the Supreme Court regarded racial segregation in public schools Constitutional (Plessy v. Ferguson), while in 1954, the same body regarded such segregation as un-Constitutional (Brown v. Board of Education). The Supreme Court of the 1930s struck down numerous New Deal legislation regarded as un-Constitutional. Later Supreme Courts viewed the same legislation as Constitutional.

Let us remember, too, that in some instances in the 19th Century, presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to follow Supreme Court directives when they believed them to be incorrect. States also took action against Federal legislation that they believed to be un-Constitutional, as Virginia and Kentucky did with respect to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

As citizens, we have a duty to abide by the law, and obey it. Our duty does not mean the law is in all instances correct and conforming to the principles of our Founding Fathers.

[templar]

From the Supremes back in 1918 or so

The highest duty of the citizen is to bear arms at the call of the nation. This duty is inherent in citizenship; without it and the correlative power of the State to compel its performance society could not be maintained. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book III, c. 2, §§ 8, 10. It is a contradiction in terms to say that the United States is a sovereign and yet lacks this power of self-defense. Hence, the power was expressly granted by the Constitution. Art. I, § 8. It is found in the power to declare war, which means a power to carry on war successfully, i.e., with the means necessary. Vattel, Book III, c. 2, § 7; United States v. Sugar,243 Fed. Rep. 423, 436; Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. St. 238. Also in the power to raise and support armies, which is conferred broadly, and without limitation, other than the restriction that appropriations to support armies shall not exceed two years. There is no provision limiting the means to voluntary enlistment. On the contrary, Congress is expressly empowered to use all means necessary and proper to carry out the express grant. Hence, the power to resort either to voluntary enlistment or to enforced draft is express. Selective draft is not only an appropriate means but under the conditions of modern warfare the most prudent, just, and equitable method which can be employed. That the power to compel military service is an incident of sovereignty appears from the custom of nations. Compulsory service is now exacted by practically all the nations of the globe. The compulsory draft was a normal method of raising armies in the United States in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. It was expressly recognized in many state constitutions, was enforced by the States for local purposes in calling out the militia, and also for obtaining levies to fill the ranks of the Continental Army. The constitutions of five States during the Revolutionary War period express the principle of universal military service. Militia duty was imposed upon all arms-bearing citizens of the original thirteen States during the eighteenth century. The Continental Congress recommended it to the States as a means of recruiting the Continental Army; and the numerous statutes enacted pursuant to those recommendations [space will not permit of their citation here] conclusively determine the meaning which the framers of the Constitution attached to the power to raise armies. The history of this clause in the Convention shows a definite intent not to limit the nation to voluntary enlistments. Supp. Elliot's Debates, vol. 5, pp. 378, 379, 443, 510, 511, 553; Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention, vol. 2, pp. 323, 330, 505, 509, 570, 595. Several of the States, in ratifying the Constitution, proposed amendments to limit the power of Congress to raise armies by draft, Journals of Congress, vol. 13, appendix, pp. 176, 184, Folwell's Press, 1801; Elliot's Debates, vol. 1, p. 336; vol. 3, p. 659; vol. 4, pp. 242, 244, 251, 252; and their rejection shows not only that the language employed was intended to include the power to draft but also that this was the contemporary interpretation. A prime object of the Constitution was to cure the impotence of the Continental Congress directly to require military service from the citizens of the States. Articles of Confederation, 7, 9 (1 Stat. 6, 7); Federalist, No. 22, p. 143, No. 23, pp. 152, 153; 7 Sparks, Writings of Washington, pp. 162, 167.

[MineralMan]

"I will agree on compulsory military service ONLY during a Congressional declared war. "

Like the Declaration of War during the Vietnam conflict, you mean? I must have missed that.

[walden]

I went and looked at the US census data-- there are 20.5 million people ages 15-19 and 19 million ages 20-24. So, if everyone was in the program for 1 year, that would be about 4 million at any one time. Assuming you can run this for $20,000 per person, that's a program that will cost $80 billion dollars every year. However, that's EXTREMELY conservative-- more realistically, it costs about $40,000 to keep someone in prison for a year, so call it $160 billion dollars a year, EVERY year.

This is a non-starter, and it's stupid, to boot. Aren't conservatives AGAINST big government? Talk about huge government, this is it.

[MineralMan]

"From the Supremes back in 1918 or so "

Thanks for the cite!

[templar]

The Constitution authorizes the Federal government the authority to raise armies and provide for a navy. However, that authority cannot be construed to include a military draft.

Wrong. If not, then please cite some USC decisions.

[MineralMan]

"I went and looked at the US census data-- there are 20.5 million people ages 15-19 and 19 million ages 20-24. So, if everyone was in the program for 1 year, that would be about 4 million at any one time. Assuming you can run this for $20,000 per person, that's a program that will cost $80 billion dollars every year. "

Sounds about right. What do you suppose the budget for our welfare programs, including corporate and farm welfare come to?

You've mentioned the costs. Now, let's talk about the benefits.

[Theophilus]

My life for my country, but not one second of my life in socialist slavery to my country.

[templar]

--if any grandchild of mine is faced with anything but a military draft out of national necessity, I'll pay for their way to anywhere to escape it--

So, what was your history with the draft back when? You seem to be advocating the same thing Clinton did, going somewhere else (England in his case) to escape it.

[al_possum39]

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.

[MineralMan]

"You seem to be advocating the same thing Clinton did, going somewhere else (England in his case) to escape it."

And there, I think, is the rub in all of this. I've heard many libertarians take a similar position. They claim not to feel any obligation to the nation or to society in general.

Thus, if they don't recognize a particular conflict as "necessary for the national security," they can simply take off or send their "grandchildren" somewhere else. It's OK, though, because they're true patriots.

Then, at the same time, many of them decry the laxity of our border defense. 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.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I actually have to agree with your #30. The USSC stated it nicely. The problem is that our current goobermint doesn't know what a war is. Everything is a "war". Wars, today, have no end, no purpose, and no meaning. The "Korean War" is still going on by means of a truce with a nation would kick the snot out of overnight, Viet Nam was never allowed to be won, and all other conflicts have never been wars about defeating a known enemy.