Reinstate the draft

[usmc1]

Top House Democrats to bar military draft plan
Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:56 PM ET

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.

"We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January under Democratic control for the first time in 12 years.

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities.

Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters on Monday that she does not support reinstating the draft, which was suspended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War and replaced by the all-volunteer army.

As Ways and Means panel chairman, Rangel will have a significant role in U.S. tax and health-care policy. That post will not necessarily give Rangel an effective forum for pursuing his military draft legislation, Pelosi observed.

Instead, Pelosi said Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point."

Previewing next year's legislative agenda, Pelosi emphasized pocketbook issues, saying Democrats will try to ease the "middle-class squeeze."

"We want to take the country in a new direction, not just for privileged America," Pelosi said in a jab to President George W. Bush's Republicans who had been in control of Congress.

Among Democrats' top priorities are increasing the minimum wage, expanding aid for college education and further lowering prescription drug costs for senior citizens.

[usmc1]

Top House Democrats to bar military draft plan
Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:56 PM ET

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.

"We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January under Democratic control for the first time in 12 years.

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities.

Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters on Monday that she does not support reinstating the draft, which was suspended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War and replaced by the all-volunteer army.

As Ways and Means panel chairman, Rangel will have a significant role in U.S. tax and health-care policy. That post will not necessarily give Rangel an effective forum for pursuing his military draft legislation, Pelosi observed.

Instead, Pelosi said Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point."

Previewing next year's legislative agenda, Pelosi emphasized pocketbook issues, saying Democrats will try to ease the "middle-class squeeze."

"We want to take the country in a new direction, not just for privileged America," Pelosi said in a jab to President George W. Bush's Republicans who had been in control of Congress.

Among Democrats' top priorities are increasing the minimum wage, expanding aid for college education and further lowering prescription drug costs for senior citizens.

[Naturist Mark]

Rangel knows that if every family has to face the possibility of their kids going off to war, they won't allow presidential misadventures and trumped up wars of choice.

During this war the only thing most Americans have been asked to do in sacrifice is buy a magnetic ribbon and applaud tax cuts to those who least need them.

Meanwhile our volunteers are going on their 4th tours.

War should be an awesome sacrifice and profound responsibility, not an economic policy.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The preceeding pile of B.S. was written by a sharp guy who'll likely realize the faux pas without me digging up old posts about chief executives and National Guard service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may have to explain that a little bit more. Perhaps you should dig up those posts.

Meanwhile, an illustration:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20061120/ldb061120.gif

Get it? As long as the majority is not asked to risk anything, give up anything, or PAY anything, this administration feels it has a free hand to do what it pleases. Rangel's draft will have no deferments, no exceptions. Rangel knows that if the majority is confronted with paying the price, they will damn well demand proof that it is a necessary price to pay. If it is, they'll support it, if it is a pile of BS, they won't.

Of course Rangel's bill will never pass either, but it will make a few people confront the truth. Which is the point.

-Mark

[NudeAl]

Hell Yes!!!

The only thing I can add is that there should be provisions for conscientious objectors and it should be mandatory for everyone not a lottery system. Perhaps we should attach some form of benefit to it? A higher class of citizenship. Reduced taxes for life or not required to pay to register your car for life. Maybe even the right to cast your vote or hold public office something like that.

I think that the alternatives to military service should be such as the Peace Corps or some sort of community service jobs for minimum wage like working in a homeless shelter or at a health clinic food bank, something that benefits our society and shows them the worth of doing a hard job.

We here in the U.S. of A. take for granted how great a country we live in. It is the most remarkable form of government in the world a government of the people, for the people and by the people. We choose who gets to govern us, this was a very unique idea in 1776 and we are able to do this on a regular basis ever since the founding of our nation. A country where members of the armed forces swear and oath of loyalty not to the flag or the president or the congress but to the Constitution of the United States. We swear an oath to an idea, an idea that is the bedrock of our society. That is awesome!

Simply getting more of us in the US to travel to certain unpopular parts of the globe to see how the majority of the world is forced to live will do wonders!! We take for granted that the lights will go on when we flip the switch that the water will flow from the faucet and it is safe to drink that we can travel anywhere in the country we want to with no permit or travel papers we can say what we want we can curse the government of this land call the president a jerk or an idiot and no one will put us in front of a firing squad no will murder our family or take away our jobs. Yes folks we live in a wonderful place that most of the world can only dream of, the American dream. A dream that has caused millions to leave their countries of birth to seek a new and better life here. A nation that has strived to improve the lot of 100's of millions of other people. We truly do live in the greatest country in the world because we have tried to change the world, to give others the freedoms we here are taking for granted.

I know many young people who would benefit from a little direction and discipline in their lives. I know I would have ended up in serious trouble if I had not gone into the Marines. We need to feel we are invested in the success of our nation. We need to feel connected to our nations success a sense of ownership a sense of old fashioned pride in our country. We also need leaders who lead not for the sake of reelection but because it is the right thing to do. If we only chose the popular decision we would never have gotten here in the first place.

Reinstate the f***ing draft but give no one the chance to dodge it. Woe to those who run away to Mexico or Canada. We should stand those F***ers in front of a firing squad if we ever get our hands on them. This is our country and in order to join you should have to pay a price or be willing to make some sacrifices to honor those who went before. I know this isn't the popular opinion but I believe it is best for the nation.

So stand up for the nation and be willing to put it all on the line. Don't be afraid there were many who went before who did the same thing. However there are too many who never had to take a stand on the firing line and face the fire of enemy bullets. They will never know the joy, the pride that is yours from knowing you earned the respect of those who traveled this road ahead of you. I took my turn on the line, 2 wars so far and I will likely go back for another tour on this one before my hitch is up.

Who was it that said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country? I think it was someone great but I don't know how many will remember? Seems like we are too good at talking the talk but not so good at walking the walk. Say what you mean and mean what you say! If you are a summer patriot you need not apply for membership in the greatest nation in the world. Oh tell me, does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I know this is not really ever going to happen. No one in government now has the balls to do this. I only wish we had this as a prerequisite for holding office now.

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As long as the majority is not asked to risk anything, give up anything, or PAY anything, this administration feels it has a free hand to do what it pleases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't we have the same situation during Vietnam under LBJ with Guns AND Butter where only those who served in the military carried the entire burden of sacrifice? The families of those who served also carried a heavy burden but the average joe and jane who had no connection to the war did not give up anything. Pick any Life magazine from the early 1940's during WW II and you will read about an entirely different situation (and society) where everyone was encouraged to sacrifice by conservation, planting victory gardens, buying war bonds, etc.

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rangel's draft will have no deferments, no exceptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Today's politicians of both parties will always find a way to exempt their children from going to war. Canada will have to make extra room availible for the bus loads of people who will not serve under a draft.

[usmc1]

Mark wrote../<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As long as the majority is not asked to risk anything, give up anything, or PAY anything, this administration feels it has a free hand to do what it pleases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:

/{QUOTE] Is someone spoofing your screen name? Any idea how many people, through family or friends or work are connected to someone who's served or even been killed in Iraq? Millions? Certainly more than a few.

Aren't you the same guy who's been railing for months about the majority giving up freedoms due to the Patriot Act, lists at airline counters, wiretapping? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me for busting past you on this one Mark, but..., this is so purposely obtuse as to demand a response. LAMONT ( rendered in the same tone of voice Seinfeld used when he said NEWMAN) do you seriously not grasp the distinction between serving one's country and having one's country tamper with your basic human rights?

One is a sacrifice rendered for the general welfare of the people. The other is a compilation of criminal and near criminal acts aimed at limiting, reducing and/or eliminating those things which contribute to our general welfare, civil liberties and human rights.

For several years now Mark Shields has been asking the very simple question of Bush and his claim that if we are engaged in the war to determination our destiny where is the sacrifice at home...what we were given was domestic spying, illegal wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus for some categories and many other abuses of power and attacks on privacy, civil liberty and rule of law.

But, never once were we The People asked to contribute--work an hour longer and increase our productivity, drive slower, car pool, drive less and conserve energy and reduce our reliance on middle east and foreign oil, set the thermostats higher in summer and lower in winter, pay a few more taxes so our troops would have suffificent and proper body armor, so their families would have higher benefits and protections, asking retirees to take over clerical funtions in the military to put more able-bodied troops in the field, and so forth.

[Nude in the North]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who was it that said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be JFK.

"Say what you mean and mean what you say!"

I believe that was Horton the Elephant, from Horton Hatches the Egg.

Steve

[nacktman]

One thing you folks are missing here is the that that there is no need to reinstate the draft ... that has been done and nearly 30 years ago to boot.
What has not been done is the actual selection of those young men who are required to register for the "draft" upon their 18th birthday for service because up to this time we have had no need of such a call-up (and we have no real reason now except for the moronic troglodytes and their blood for oil "strategy").

Exemptions and exceptions to service are in place as they were before the suspension of the "draft" for the few years there was no registration requirement and abuses will occur should the actual calling-up begin again (it's human nature) and another well known and never admitted "fact" is that during the call-up years of the draft the lower economic class and less educated and minorities were "called-up" in disproportionate numbers by the local selection boards ... one of the reasons given to "reinstate" the draft is to remove this skew - won't happen (again, human nature).

What we need is a true "draft" of every citizen, (that's EVERY citizen, male and female) between 18 - 30 into a required 2 years of service to the country, be it military, peace corps - foregin or domestic, or even just cleaning litter off the highway, etc.
Persons would be required to complete this service during those years and then be better prepared to be fully functioning and particapating citizens of this country, instead of some of the inadequate and woefully deficent "citizens" we see now.
Oh, and no exemptions or exceptions to this service would be allowed.

[shomymojo]

The Draft...just say ..NO !!!

[hm0504]

What's wrong with re-instituting the draft? Anyone can get out of it by simply joining community theatre!:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8077.html

Great Daily Show Jason Jones video here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=75563

[usmc1]

LAMONT, (Same tone as before) Several points to your latest overwrought posting:

I don't believe you advance your case very well by calling me a jackass and smarmy and etc. Especially when you earlier complimented me on my well-researched and thought out points of view.

Please do yourself a favor, and tell the orderlies it's time for your evening meds.

And if you think what I said earlier left you steamed, read on old man, read on.

There is no such thing as a War on Terror any more than there were WMDs in Iraq, or Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or harbored Al Quaida training camps. Or that we're advancing some sort of contagious Democracy in the Middle East by invading, occcupying and turning a troublesome nation into a failed state.

Terror is a noun, a concept, a para-military strategy, an idea...one just cannot wage war on nouns, concepts or ideas. It, by its utterance (that oxy-moronic, non-sequiter of a phrase) also elevated a two-bit cave-dwelling pyschopath into hero status throughout the Muslim world.

It would have taken 30-million dollars and some mercs and the guy could of been done in 90-days. And the world would have applauded. Now, you've got waht you've got, and you know what, you bear a load of the responsibility--you voted for the gnawing rats, mendicats and jackels of this administration that got us in this fix

It is regrettable that your life has been touched by so much misfortune, pain and misery due to the 3-card Monte game that you've chosen to take part in. And like it or not, you bear a significant part of the responsibility for all, you and every other person who were so delighted to send Johnny marching off to war.

But, my outrage at the attack on our freedoms, civil liberties, basic human rights and rule of law through the guise of a falacious and specious War on Terror is neither smarmy nor self-serving. You want to buy that line of crap, that's your deal. But, understand this, you have fewer and fewer fellow travelers each day.

If you think that doing volunteer work and free overtime hours qualifies as sacrifice, I couldn't disabuse you of the notion. There are no rational arguments or debates that could penetrate that sort of mind set.

Linking your paltry contributions from the sidelines to those you mention who have truly sacrificed for this country says a whole lot more about you than you probably, upon sober reflection, would care to reveal about yourself.

You've been punked by the guys you helped put into office.

As to preaching to you, I don't think I did really. Touched a nerve I guess. Good. You deserve it big time.

[Liam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
No. I'm giving self-serving condesending jackasses a break for a while.

You can preach to an empty room. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif Friend Mike, I have no iron in the fire. In fact I think I have given up discussing politics and following it in any form of media.

But I do have an opinion about the Draft. I served 2 tours in Vietnam in the Navy. I hated the military. Everything about it. I earned a differment for 2 years for my first 2 years in College. I was in no way suitable for military service and, in military tradition, I was given a job I was not able to do well.

I did receive the benefit of having most of my University fees paid by the VA. I was fortunate to have enough schollarships to pay for my books. That is a wonderful thing, but it in no way makes up for the waste of my years being shot at and treated like sh*t.

I would never want to see any draft begun again. Much of the problems with inequality in the voluntary service is because of the Bush Administrations lowering of the standards for enlistment. This has been made even worse by the removal of highly educated personnel for being homosexual.

I am too old now to be drafted. Even if they did, unlike in the 60s, I can state that I am a homosexual and therefore unfit. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif Still I would hate to see any unprepared and unsuitable young men and women put through the hell I went through.

[nacktman]

After reading the postings of one particular "poster" one can not help being firmly convinced (if one was not already) that said poster is a whinny, ill mannered brat who's lack of understanding of any topic makes their ravings and rantings all the more inane and laughable.

But, I digress ...

Hey, Liam, that was the Navy - you just went through "heck". http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif
I still say we need a draft for all citizens for service to the country, though it need not be military service - we need people to work in the inner cities to help rebuild them (socially, economically as well as physically reconstruction them as well) for example ... the list is enormous.

[Bob S.]

Mark:"As long as the majority is not asked to risk anything, give up anything, or PAY anything, this administration feels it has a free hand to do what it pleases."

That is a difference with otehr wars. The homefront was expected to give up something tangible. Today, there wasn't anything. We were told to go about our daily lives as normal--otherwise the terrorists win. No rations, no collections, no fundraising efforts for the troops (sponsored by the govt).

Of course, one could argue that the Patriot Act was something we were forced to endure. But even that was not felt by the majority.

Mark:"Rangel's draft will have no deferments, no exceptions."

Now you know that would have been impossible. Health and mental impairments are just two reasons for a deferrment from service. JWs would have sued under their religious freedom rights. No exceptions sound nice, but it is impossible in today's world.

But ultimately, Rangel introduced this legislation not with the expectation that it would pass-- he knew it wouldn't even get past a committee if it was even introduced-- but with the expectation that it would cause people to talk about the issues regarding the amount of soldiers we have abroad.

Bob S.

[roadrambler2]

Draft the Bush Twins! and while you at it lets draft the current VP. He has had 5 exemptions so far! He is a crack rifleman so he should go!

[fred950]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:

Mark:"Rangel's draft will have no deferments, no exceptions."

Now you know that would have been impossible. Health and mental impairments are just two reasons for a deferrment from service. JWs would have sued under their religious freedom rights. No exceptions sound nice, but it is impossible in today's world.

But ultimately, Rangel introduced this legislation not with the expectation that it would pass-- he knew it wouldn't even get past a committee if it was even introduced-- but with the expectation that it would cause people to talk about the issues regarding the amount of soldiers we have abroad.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, while I wholehartidly agree there should be exemptions for physical and mental reasons, JW, Quakers and others could be required to serve in a "Universal Service" (community service, peace corp etc).
Having said that, I have thought of a novel exemption. No one who's familey is below the poverty line could be drafted.... ROFLMAO. Care to guess how far that one would get?

[gormenghast20]

My God, I agree with you...LOL...and I voted for James Webb...maybe this website is having some effect on me!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
One thing you folks are missing here is the that that there is no need to reinstate the draft ... that has been done and nearly 30 years ago to boot.
What has not been done is the actual selection of those young men who are required to register for the "draft" upon their 18th birthday for service because up to this time we have had no need of such a call-up (and we have no real reason now except for the moronic troglodytes and their blood for oil "strategy").

Exemptions and exceptions to service are in place as they were before the suspension of the "draft" for the few years there was no registration requirement and abuses will occur should the actual calling-up begin again (it's human nature) and another well known and never admitted "fact" is that during the call-up years of the draft the lower economic class and less educated and minorities were "called-up" in disproportionate numbers by the local selection boards ... one of the reasons given to "reinstate" the draft is to remove this skew - won't happen (again, human nature).

What we need is a true "draft" of every citizen, (that's EVERY citizen, male and female) between 18 - 30 into a required 2 years of service to the country, be it military, peace corps - foregin or domestic, or even just cleaning litter off the highway, etc.
Persons would be required to complete this service during those years and then be better prepared to be fully functioning and particapating citizens of this country, instead of some of the inadequate and woefully deficent "citizens" we see now.
Oh, and no exemptions or exceptions to this service would be allowed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[gormenghast20]

Excellent post!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Hell Yes!!!

The only thing I can add is that there should be provisions for conscientious objectors and it should be mandatory for everyone not a lottery system. Perhaps we should attach some form of benefit to it? A higher class of citizenship. Reduced taxes for life or not required to pay to register your car for life. Maybe even the right to cast your vote or hold public office something like that.

I think that the alternatives to military service should be such as the Peace Corps or some sort of community service jobs for minimum wage like working in a homeless shelter or at a health clinic food bank, something that benefits our society and shows them the worth of doing a hard job.

We here in the U.S. of A. take for granted how great a country we live in. It is the most remarkable form of government in the world a government of the people, for the people and by the people. We choose who gets to govern us, this was a very unique idea in 1776 and we are able to do this on a regular basis ever since the founding of our nation. A country where members of the armed forces swear and oath of loyalty not to the flag or the president or the congress but to the Constitution of the United States. We swear an oath to an idea, an idea that is the bedrock of our society. That is awesome!

Simply getting more of us in the US to travel to certain unpopular parts of the globe to see how the majority of the world is forced to live will do wonders!! We take for granted that the lights will go on when we flip the switch that the water will flow from the faucet and it is safe to drink that we can travel anywhere in the country we want to with no permit or travel papers we can say what we want we can curse the government of this land call the president a jerk or an idiot and no one will put us in front of a firing squad no will murder our family or take away our jobs. Yes folks we live in a wonderful place that most of the world can only dream of, the American dream. A dream that has caused millions to leave their countries of birth to seek a new and better life here. A nation that has strived to improve the lot of 100's of millions of other people. We truly do live in the greatest country in the world because we have tried to change the world, to give others the freedoms we here are taking for granted.

I know many young people who would benefit from a little direction and discipline in their lives. I know I would have ended up in serious trouble if I had not gone into the Marines. We need to feel we are invested in the success of our nation. We need to feel connected to our nations success a sense of ownership a sense of old fashioned pride in our country. We also need leaders who lead not for the sake of reelection but because it is the right thing to do. If we only chose the popular decision we would never have gotten here in the first place.

Reinstate the f***ing draft but give no one the chance to dodge it. Woe to those who run away to Mexico or Canada. We should stand those F***ers in front of a firing squad if we ever get our hands on them. This is our country and in order to join you should have to pay a price or be willing to make some sacrifices to honor those who went before. I know this isn't the popular opinion but I believe it is best for the nation.

So stand up for the nation and be willing to put it all on the line. Don't be afraid there were many who went before who did the same thing. However there are too many who never had to take a stand on the firing line and face the fire of enemy bullets. They will never know the joy, the pride that is yours from knowing you earned the respect of those who traveled this road ahead of you. I took my turn on the line, 2 wars so far and I will likely go back for another tour on this one before my hitch is up.

Who was it that said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country? I think it was someone great but I don't know how many will remember? Seems like we are too good at talking the talk but not so good at walking the walk. Say what you mean and mean what you say! If you are a summer patriot you need not apply for membership in the greatest nation in the world. Oh tell me, does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I know this is not really ever going to happen. No one in government now has the balls to do this. I only wish we had this as a prerequisite for holding office now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:

I think that the alternatives to military service should be such as the Peace Corps or some sort of community service jobs for minimum wage like working in a homeless shelter or at a health clinic food bank, something that benefits our society and shows them the worth of doing a hard job.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, Rangel's argument is presented as "food for thought" -- if there were a universal military draft -- no college deferments, no "hardship" ("my little Johnnie CAN'T go. He helps me here in the store when my back is sore." type of things).

No exemptions for the wealthy this time around -- does anyone remember the catchall and mysterious "1-Y" deferment classification?

When the 13th Amendment was passed -- it did not mention "SLAVERY" -- it used the term "involuntary servitude". This was likely used to cover the old indentured servitude (bondage) system, and Congress may have had the military draft in mind.

If you study your history, you will learn that Lincoln's conscription for the Civil War was highly unpopular. It didn't help that the wealthy were permitted to buy their way out for $150, or could send a substitute in their place. Congress may have been shooting for that.

As far as "national service" -- the 13th Amendment prohibits it.

[Naturist Mark]

The great Robert Heinlein wrote about universal national service (it was a major plot theme in Starship Troopers and other stories).

Under his proposal national service was voluntary - no one had to serve. But you couldn't earn citizenship without it. Most people didn't care, just like the majority of Americans who don't bother to vote. Those with a sense of responsibility beyond their own needs would serve in any of a number of fields according to their skills and aptitudes - public health, the sciences, teaching, picking up litter, the infantry, etc. - no one who wished to serve would be turned away.

Can you imagine that in these United States?

-Mark

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When the 13th Amendment was passed -- it did not mention "SLAVERY" -- it used the term "involuntary servitude". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And that's one more of the reasons that tax protesters claim the Income Tax is unconstitutional -- a tax on personal labor means you are laboring for the government, involuntarily. They do have a point.

That wasn't meant to hijack this thread, but please do think about the implications in a constitutional sense. Universal Service, and National Defense in a time of constitutionally declared war, are two distinctly different things.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When the 13th Amendment was passed -- it did not mention "SLAVERY" -- it used the term "involuntary servitude". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And that's one more of the reasons that tax protesters claim the Income Tax is unconstitutional -- a tax on personal labor means you are laboring for the government, involuntarily. They do have a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they don't. The 16th Amendment was passed after the 13th Amendment - therefore the income tax is constitutional QED.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

Mark, the point is arguable, that's why it still gets cited.

1. Somewhere in Black's Law Dictionary, it explains that when two laws are contradictory, the first law overrules. The second law is without force, unless and until the first law is repealed.

2. The 16th Amendment doesn't specify income from labor, per se, but says "from whatever source derived" which can be interpreted to mean "whatever source is already being legally taxed" and then goes on to its real meat, which is to repeal the former requirement of apportionment. It's worded that way to explicitly say that the repeal of apportionment is not limited to any subset of income sources. But it doesn't redefine the taxability of any specific source.

I'm not saying I'm any expert on this, or that this is my belief. I'm saying this is the argument, and the answer has to be determined in the courts.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Mark, the point is arguable, that's why it still gets cited.

1. Somewhere in Black's Law Dictionary, it explains that when two laws are contradictory, the first law overrules. The second law is without force, unless and until the first law is repealed.

2. The 16th Amendment doesn't specify income from labor, per se, but says "from whatever source derived" which can be interpreted to mean "whatever source is already being legally taxed" and then goes on to its real meat, which is to repeal the former requirement of apportionment. It's worded that way to explicitly say that the repeal of apportionment is not limited to any subset of income sources. But it doesn't redefine the taxability of any specific source.

I'm not saying I'm any expert on this, or that this is my belief. I'm saying this is the argument, and the answer has to be determined in the courts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1)Then Black's is wrong. The latter amendment always over rules the former, or original text. Otherwise an Amendment would never be valid under any circumstances.

2)A feeble attempt to argue that the Amendment does not mean what it plainly means. "From whatever source derived" means from any source.

Like it or not, the legality of the income tax has been repeatedly upheld by Federal and Supreme Courts. It is legal and Constitutional.

-Mark

[Captain Curmudgeon]

Universal Service, but a wide choice of what that service is. And I mean Universal. Confined to an iron lung (and I hope we have few people like that)? That's OK: you can still serve your country.

Same pay and benefits and general conditions for all options.

I think it would have more good effect on the kids than for the country. Certainly, in my case, the two things that made me love my country most were being in the Navy ('62-'67) and travelling from Virginia to Oregon on a bicycle in '76. Both very rich and very varied experiences.

[FMII]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gifHay! it's time to wake up. When the draft was rescinded, it wasen't because there wasen't a need for military people. It's was because the rich in power didn't want their kids in the service. Having to perhps defend us. But it was ok for the middleclasses and the minority to serve. What happens when we are all equal? It will certainly be fun to read from this site, and identify the liberals, and the jolly ole free loaders. If my gut feelings are correct this might be a very lively issue. I believe I will stay tuned in.

[oddbutterfly1]

The draft was bad the first time and it would be bad again.I may live in Canada, but I know alot of you so called dodgers. Not every American wants to kill another person in or out of a so called war that most people have no idea what it is all about. I also do not understand the mentally of some that think they are the be all and end all and have they right to interfere with another country and thier decisions. I guess I just don't get it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/no.gif

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1)Then Black's is wrong. The latter amendment always over rules the former, or original text.

Black's is wrong? By what higher authority? It's about the "Rule of Law" and without those rules, the interpretation of law would be hectically chaotic. The rule of precedence is one of the more simple, straightforward rules.

Otherwise an Amendment would never be valid under any circumstances.

Of course it would! All it has to do is repeal the original text, or otherwise amend some exlicitly named former text. Like the way Prohibition was repealed. But the 16th was not written to amend the 13th, but rather to amend the apportionment requirement for levying taxes. So the argument is not about whether the 16th defines income from labor as being taxable, but whether the (still valid, obviously) 13th includes that labor in its citation of "involuntary servitude" being prohibited. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>