Reading the Constitution.

[miko2d]

Amendment XIII

Section 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.

 There is no provision for drafting people in the main body of the Constitution - only for raising armies and providing for calling forth the militia.

 In addition the 13th clearly states that involuntary service shall not exist. And yes - I looked up the definition of a servitude and it is completely compatible with the definition of the service in the kodern use and the status of a soldier in a military.

ser·vi·tude
A state of subjection to an owner or master.
Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.

a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life

 It seems to me that the draft would be unconstitutional.

 miko

[FUNKED1]

For that matter, what about forcing citizens to work 40-50% of the year to pay off the government, or else they get fined and thrown in jail?

[Dago]

Is there anything in there that says we have to allow in commie troublemakers?


dago

[miko2d]

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 Thanks to the 16th amendment the power to tax income is constitutional, though most programs that are supported by tax money are not.

 miko

[FUNKED1]

DAMMIT!!!
I spit on the graves of those who enacted that amendment.  Morons.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by miko2d
I looked up the definition of a servitude and it is completely compatible with the definition of the service in the modern use and the status of a soldier in a military.

It seems to me that the draft would be unconstitutional.

Maybe I missed something here, but isn't the conclusion in contradiction to the premise?

[miko2d]

The amendment is not an issue. The problem was the people who replaced the articles of the Confederation with the flawed Constitution in the first place, against the advice of people like Franklin, Patrick Henry, etc.

 

"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the people…I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."

 -- Patrick Henry on adoption of the new Constitution.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined…The Honorable Gentleman who presides told us, that to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed to them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people! Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders?

-- Patrick Henry on separation of power between the independent states and an American Union as the only means to preserving liberty

"If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire."

 -- Patrick Henry on choice between empire and liberty

 miko

[miko2d]

Holden McGroin: Maybe I missed something here, but isn't the conclusion in contradiction to the premise?

 I looked at the definition of the word "servitude" in the dictionary and it is completely compatible with the definition of the "involuntrary military service".

 So an objection that the Constitutional meaning of "servitude" is different from what is meant by "compulsory military service" would not be valid and thus the draft - which is a compulsory military service - would be unconstitutional.

 miko

[Holden McGroin]

ahh okay, clarity is achieved

[Holden McGroin]

245 U.S. 366 (1918) The courts analysis, in full, of the 13th Amendment issue raised by compulsary military draft was the following:
"As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as a result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violations of the prohibitions of the thirteenth amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement"

US vs O'Brien, 391 US 367, 377 (1968)

Declared that the power to classify and conscript manpower for military service was "beyond question"

>typos

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Dago
Is there anything in there that says we have to allow in commie troublemakers?


dago

I think the 1st Amendment covers this.