Well Rangel is trying to make a statement* more so than pass this bill.. in any event this bill is clearly unconstitutional..
Know your rights...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionSection 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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Now looking at the above, unless you have been duly convicted, or some form of voluntary contract has been formed, any type of conscription is illegal.. (note the terms... it says "shall exist" thats very clear.. and cannot be rebuttaled thru ambiguity (some may claim the scotus decision in the early 1900's, but when no basis is given with exception to opinion**, that decision could be fought to be revisited very easily today)
Now whether you agree with this or dont, its on the books ... infact we fought a civil war over this topic..
IMO if the clowns want to force conscription, then go about the proper way; amend the constitution, then make your bill...
Until that happens.. someone comes a barking draft.. dont get mad.. go on the record (certified mail) explaining your rights.. (not priviledge) if ******* pursues, sue... that simple..
PS: people will say well vietnam there was a draft etc.. korea, ww2 etc.. this was all before the internet and self education,(most people were poor and signed their name X, brave new world now..) most cases were fought on objector status as opposed to constitutional rights of non slavery.... aka 13th admendment. If this was revisted as it was in Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) today... it would be clearly overturned..
* - Rangels trying to point out the uneven demographic of todays volunteer force, not force a draft...
** - heres the opinion for yourself..
"Finally, 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 the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation 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."
"Supreme and Noble duty statement" sounds a whole alot like opinion of the court and not the law.. (nowhere in the constituition does it claim noble duty from its citizens) the highest law of the land says no in the form of the 13th admendment.. this is bolstered by the 9th admendment which closes the door on opinion based power grabs like the Arver Vs United States. Do we follow the constitution or some man pulling the power grab over illiterates back in 1918 ... you decide...