the Draft

[bookwormom]

Last night around six I heard on the news (car radio) how a democratic congressman said we need to reinstate the draft, as the military does not have manpower to deal with upcoming problems in Iran and North Korea. It was dark and raining and I was just hitting the big city, so did not pay much attention to the radio until it was too late to catch the name.
Maybe someone has heard the same guy say the same thing and caught the name.

[tonyb]

Good Idea!
;D ;D ;D ;D

[chloe3388]

Charlie Rangal I think that is the spelling.

[Txanne]

The draft is illegal.
It is slavery .

It is unConstitutional.

And is one of the most heinous of all offences againest the americans that served this country.

You dont have to enslave a Patriot--they serve their country of their own voluntion.

Ask a Nam vet--how it felt to be forced to fight an unwinable [[police action ]] and come home to be spat on.

Forced to participate in it.

Rangel needs a frontal lobottmy---be my pleasure.

annie

[bee_pipes]

<...sigh>

The sad part is, the people that start these things and benefit the most from them have nothing to lose. Most are able to protect themselves and their families from being put in harm's way.

Al Gore may not have exactly been a war hero, and as a military correspondent he wasn't exactly drawing fire like a radio operator or an AR man, but at least he was over there. Much closer than Quayle or George W., and countless others that used family and connections to stay a safe distance. Kerry served too, though it may have been delusions of grandeur or a Kennedy wannabe. I think you could count the members of congress with children in the military on one hand.

I agree, it is far from equitable, and provides a means of impressing people for service. Protests and riots against the draft have been going on in this country since the civil war.

Regards,
Pat

[Txanne]

And most youngters dont realize how unequal
the draft was--then some kind of lottery was proposed---

I had a chart once--showing how many died from which ever states---it wasnt equal by any means.
[[Viet Nam ]

annie

[Tightwad]

And most youngters dont realize how unequal
the draft was--then some kind of lottery was proposed---


Back when Nam was hot the privileged rich dodged the draft via
collage or money connections. Then the lottery was supposed to
fix that imbalance......and pigs fly too. ::) ::) Just look at Ol'G.W.
who enlisted in the reserves then never pulled the duty. >:(

There will be no draft.......unless........America is openly attacked(??)
again. The need for fresh recruits has been temporarily fixed by
raising the enlistment age to 40 :o and lowering the intelligence
requirement. >:(. All this accomplishes is getting warm bodies that
will fight and die for this misguided incompetently run oil war.

If we get hit again every abled bodied ( and some not so able) will
conscripted into military service to serve as cannon fodder. How
many of our young will we sacrifice to this idiocy and incompetence?

Make no mistake.........
The oil wars are partly to fight terrorist. Terrorist can be defeated
in many other ways by removing their support structure never with
a shooting war. But alas we're there now America must at least win
some sort of peace or be in a war that last for generations. Bush
and his entire cabinet has really gotten America in a hell'va mess.

[RangerRick]

This is clearly a political ploy from everyones socialist pinko dangle rangle to beat on Bush with awhile. *

We got rid of the draft because it wasn't fair and the liberals that sent us off to war and then wouldn't allow us to win thought this would make us the wiping boy of the world. *The idea of getting rid of it was to keep liberals from doing something this stupid again.

Enter the all volunteer service to keep those too dumb, unpatrotic and out and out street trash at home sucking up welfare and voting liberal. *Surprise surprise, the quality of volunteers jumped through the overhead, we do so much more with less numbers and everyone is tech savy and if ya arn't advancing you're back on the street with the malcontents. *Damn, those that stay are getting all the education they want and damn damn double damn, we've found that with more education most all of them vote conservative. *What ya gona do? *I know, BRING BACK THE DRAFT and save the demo-rats.

Ranger Rick

[pancho]

Why reinstate the draft when we have enough volunteering? This is not the only time he has tried the same thing. Each time it goes to vote it is voted down. There is no likelyhood for it to ever pass. Just another way of drawing attention.

[Tightwad]

Well, I guess this topic is dead now. Pelosi was
asked if the draft would be brought back and she
responded.........NO! Charlie ain't gonna get this
done anytime soon.

[DaNgEr_KiTtY]

well its not the first time charlie tried this. he pulled this a few few months back & the republicans called his bluff & put it up to vote. not only did charlie vote against his own bill but also asked his dem buddies to do the same. he had a dif reason for this only a few months ago. now its a dif story. today he wants it to insure that the republican's children will be in the quay if republicans chose a war again.

last time i checked it seems that there are many republican senators & congress(persons) offspring already serving & actually there. it gets old that the left continues to say that the privileged get out of serving. my most recent buddy joining is a college educated ex-marine that will go army cause the marine cut-off date is 28 now. he is also a millionaire.

i understand that the lefties have this idea that the standards are lowered so that the people that cant get a job at walmart have no choice but to serve & die for bush's war for oil. i personally have about 2 months to convince my wife to let me re-enlist. it would be a big pay cut for me but i guess its all about the money when you are a liberal.

i recently met up with some marines at a local rifle range. every single one of these boys were bright, professional, well mannered & dedicated to making sure you arent on a prayer rug 7 times a day. these guys were not the product of liberal education but those that comprehend what freedom means.

i will assure mr wrangle that there will be no need to draft sissy liberals to go to war if we need more troops. if the sh*t gets that bad i assure you the roster will be full. honestly i would be ok with a bill to draft registered republicans & allow the lefties to get back to playing their video games, collecting welfare, calling each other the n werd, waking up at noon, going on protest marches or whatever useless things they are doing. no disrespect to the lefties that actually attend work with pulse & demand health care & retirement & produce hardly anything.

i think everything would be ok if we drafted the lefties to go & talk to those maniacs that the military is prepared to kill. lets have a real peace corps.

annie i dont think the draft would be illegal but trust me we dont want alot of the pond scrum that we would get. we need people proud to be americans to do the job.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/stevebrotzman/funny%20stuff/1A.jpg

...............................

[Txanne]

let me get back to you---The draft is unConstitutional--that makes it illegal to use it againest the citizens of this country.

i'll have to get my little maroon book out again--But it is akin to slavery---which was abolished---and Where in the Constitution does it say---that a government---of the people by the people and for the people can be forced to serve againest their will?

I dont thinkk anyone can prove to me it is Constitutional.

annie

[Txanne]

Well, I guess this topic is dead now. Pelosi was
asked if the draft would be brought back and she
responded.........NO! Charlie ain't gonna get this
done anytime soon.

It can never be a dead issue when it is used AGAINEST the citizens illegally.

Where does the Constitution say---The government can grab up its citizens and force them to serve---any cause they donot wish to serve as free Americans?

Patriots dont have to be forced by threat of imprisonment to make them serve.They very force---of threat is unConstitutional.

annie

[DaNgEr_KiTtY]

annie i didnt elaborate all of my thoughts but if congress amends the constitution then its pretty much legal. i may be wrong but thats what i thought. this aint no annie is wrong post anyways ;D

[bee_pipes]

It can never be a dead issue when it is used AGAINEST the citizens illegally.

Where does the Constitution say---The government can grab up its citizens and force them to serve---any cause they donot wish to serve as free Americans?

Patriots dont have to be forced by threat of imprisonment to make them serve.They very force---of threat is unConstitutional.

annie

Article I. Section 8. - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...

Framing this in the context of the day, with a heritage of feudalism, it was common practice for the lords and other nobility to raise an army for the common defense of their holdings. The draft is a more recent innovation (more recent than the original article 8 ) but still serves the same purpose. We are not at the whim of the local nobility, but we (our forefathers) have permitted the government the right to raise an army. It is up to us to keep control of that power granted to the government.

Regards,
Pat

[Txanne]

It starts with the leving of taxes---

and says to raise and support armies---Not draft them.

annie

[Txanne]

annie i didnt elaborate all of my thoughts but if congress amends the constitution then its pretty much legal. *i may be wrong but thats what i thought. *this aint no annie is wrong post anyways *;D


;D ;D ;DiiHey I didnt take it that way----Oh no---I just feel strongly about the American people having this FORCED on them-----
Our sons and daughters FORCED to die---
Now an All volunteer Army/military is what I understand.

If and when we get back to the basics of this countries Constitution----we will then be free again.

I donot blindly accept a governments design for my fate--Neither should any of you.

Didnot take your opposite opinion as an affront--Not at all. ;D

annie ;D

[Txanne]

A few draft facts:
The last man drafted was in June of 1973

W1--2.8 millon were drafted.
W2--10 millon were drafted.

Korean Conflict:1.5 millon

Viet Nam War: 1.8 millon

In the Irag War--I dont have a draft count---No Draft.

But California and Texas have lost the most soldiers to the War---

annie

[Tightwad]

Where does the Constitution say---The government can grab up its citizens and force them to serve---any cause they donot wish to serve as free Americans?

Please re-read the post that Bee-pipes posted as that is the exact
language that DOES empower congress to "press into service"
any / all persons required to defend the country. Bee-pipes is
very correct that the difference in the language of the 1700's and
today may cause a misinterpretation of the intent of this
section of the Constitution.

That short take is that the "draft" is NOT un constitutional. In fact
the ability to "draft" is critical to the national defense. All through
history every city state or nation has always had the need/right to
conscript men for an army to defend themselves with. War is fact
with humans so conscripting men (drafting) will always be necessary.

The "All volunteer" Army is a nice military experiment but,in time,
will not provide enough recruits to keep a proper standing army.

[ASG]

Article I. Section 8. - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...

Framing this in the context of the day, with a heritage of feudalism, it was common practice for the lords and other nobility to raise an army for the common defense of their holdings. The draft is a more recent innovation (more recent than the original article 8 ) but still serves the same purpose. We are not at the whim of the local nobility, but we (our forefathers) have permitted the government the right to raise an army. It is up to us to keep control of that power granted to the government.

Regards,
Pat
The founders of this country were against feudalism and against standing armies (my own state's constitution says standing armies are not to be kept up, though it's ignored these days), and their idea of raising an army was an all volunteer army, there was never a draft until Lincoln came along (and many of the things he did were ruled unconstitutional both during and after the war).

More importantly, Ammendment 13 is as follows:

"1. 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.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

A draft is involuntary servitude. Unconstitutional, and ammending the Constitution is never quick or easy either.

[ASG]

Please re-read the post that Bee-pipes posted as that is the exact
language that DOES empower congress to "press into service"
any / all persons required to defend the country. Bee-pipes is
very correct that the difference in the language of the 1700's and
today may cause a misinterpretation of the intent of this
section of the Constitution.

That short take is that the "draft" is NOT un constitutional. In fact
the ability to "draft" is critical to the national defense. All through
history every city state or nation has always had the need/right to
conscript men for an army to defend themselves with. War is fact
with humans so conscripting men (drafting) will always be necessary.

The "All volunteer" Army is a nice military experiment but,in time,
will not provide enough recruits to keep a proper standing army.

Neither the Revolution, nor 1812, nor in the Mexican War, did we use a draft. It was understood to be unconstitutional. The VT COnstitution even says the following:
"as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power"

and: "nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto"


There's even more if you examine the writings of the various founders, etc.

[bee_pipes]

Right you are. Standing armies were seen as a great evil and the tool of tyrants. The colonists were quite angry about having to house British troops as part of the crown's efforts to reduce costs.

Article I. Section 8. - Powers of Congress
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
...

While the constitution specifically mentions a standing navy (maintain) they definitely don't demand a standing army. However, looking at the exact verbiage, they don't prohibit it, either. An old history teacher used to delight in pointing out what he called "deliberately vague and ambiguous" passages in the constitution. The intent was to provide guidance without locking us into something.

Some of the wording was a matter of coming up with something acceptable to all parties wrangling this thing out.

The American distrust of standing armies held for some time. I know somebody changed that particular policy, but at the moment I can't recall who that was or when. Currently, the policy of the American government IS to maintain a standing army. The first draft I recall having hear of was during the civil war. Conscription was practiced by both sides. In the south, the sheriff just rounded up able bodied men. In the north it got real messy. There was a lottery, you could buy your way out, if picked. There was a riot, the gov't put up bond money so it could pay itself for poor people that wanted to buy their way out... these are all ancient memories and I may have some of the facts wrong.

Regards,
Pat

[Thomas]

Danger Kitty, I think you are wrong about the number of our legislators who have children serving in the armed forces. Last I saw the numbers were very very small.

[ASG]

Right you are. Standing armies were seen as a great evil and the tool of tyrants. The colonists were quite angry about having to house British troops as part of the crown's efforts to reduce costs.

Article I. Section 8. - Powers of Congress
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
...

While the constitution specifically mentions a standing navy (maintain) they definitely don't demand a standing army. However, looking at the exact verbiage, they don't prohibit it, either. An old history teacher used to delight in pointing out what he called "deliberately vague and ambiguous" passages in the constitution. The intent was to provide guidance without locking us into something.

Some of the wording was a matter of coming up with something acceptable to all parties wrangling this thing out.

The American distrust of standing armies held for some time. I know somebody changed that particular policy, but at the moment I can't recall who that was or when. Currently, the policy of the American government IS to maintain a standing army. The first draft I recall having hear of was during the civil war. Conscription was practiced by both sides. In the south, the sheriff just rounded up able bodied men. In the north it got real messy. There was a lottery, you could buy your way out, if picked. There was a riot, the gov't put up bond money so it could pay itself for poor people that wanted to buy their way out... these are all ancient memories and I may have some of the facts wrong.

Regards,
Pat
To "raise an army" doesn't mean to have a draft, that was not the intent of that phrase. Furthermore, as ammended, the Constitution forbids involuntary servitude anyways, so the "raise an army" issue is a moot point.