Unfortunately, people who are otherwise "liberal" will support it for all the usual reasons that come down to "it's good for people to mix."
I dont know who you've talked to -- but most people who support Selective Service do so for more than "it's good for people to mix". The primary reasoning for Selective Service is to supplement the military when volunteer numbers are too small.
I agree that the draft has *not* been applied equally up to this point -- but that is something to be fixed, not tossed out altogether.
Although the Selective Service System is authorized by the Selective Service Act, some[specify] dispute the constitutionality of the act, claiming the law violates the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of the U.S. Constitution by providing for military conscription. Opponents of the law contend that the draft constitutes "involuntary servitude", under the amendment, which states:
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.[26] This has not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court said in Butler v. Perry:
The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[27] Constitutionalists[specify] have since noted, however, that such "owed duties" also preceded the established fundamental precepts of "inalienable rights" to life and liberty, which would presumably supersede them, and by which the states originally declared the principal basis for their independence from Great Britain in 1776; accordingly, American governments could derive no just power or authority to claim impose duties that interfered with such rights, since otherwise this would provide government with a "loophole" for doing so. Therefore while the court clarified that the draft did not violate the 13th Amendment per se, it failed to address either the 9th Amendment regarding such rights which were retained by the People, despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution; or the 10th Amendment safeguards against the enlargement of federal powers, over those specifically delegated therein.
I can think of no greater evil than a forced military service. Depends on whether you believe in a "Social Contract", and whether or not you believe citizens have responsibilities as part of our society.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-11-14 04:09 pm (UTC)I dont know who you've talked to -- but most people who support Selective Service do so for
more than "it's good for people to mix". The primary reasoning for Selective Service
is to supplement the military when volunteer numbers are too small.
I agree that the draft has *not* been applied equally up to this point -- but that is something to be fixed, not tossed out altogether.
What part of "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States" provides an exception for compulsary service?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_service
Although the Selective Service System is authorized by the Selective Service Act, some[specify] dispute the constitutionality of the act, claiming the law violates the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of the U.S. Constitution by providing for military conscription. Opponents of the law contend that the draft constitutes "involuntary servitude", under the amendment, which states:
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.[26]
This has not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court said in Butler v. Perry:
The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[27]
Constitutionalists[specify] have since noted, however, that such "owed duties" also preceded the established fundamental precepts of "inalienable rights" to life and liberty, which would presumably supersede them, and by which the states originally declared the principal basis for their independence from Great Britain in 1776; accordingly, American governments could derive no just power or authority to claim impose duties that interfered with such rights, since otherwise this would provide government with a "loophole" for doing so. Therefore while the court clarified that the draft did not violate the 13th Amendment per se, it failed to address either the 9th Amendment regarding such rights which were retained by the People, despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution; or the 10th Amendment safeguards against the enlargement of federal powers, over those specifically delegated therein.
I can think of no greater evil than a forced military service.
Depends on whether you believe in a "Social Contract", and whether or not you believe citizens have responsibilities
as part of our society.