13th amendment

[Ikerous]

The 13th amendment says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States."

Is there any reason that this shouldn't apply to conscription?
Why don't the courts recognize this?

Now, I feel quite strongly about that applying to the draft, but what about jury duty? Doesn't it make sense to apply it there as well?

Curious about your opinions on either

 

[bliink]

I suppose it lies in the definition of "servitude"

 

[gick]

I'd never really thought about it, but it looks like youve got a point there Ikerous. I should imagine if this ever reaches the courts, it'll rest on the definition of servitude, as bliink said.

 

[bliink]

Actually, one might also challenge the definition of "involuntary".

What are the conditions for jury duty over there? In Australia, you enter into the jury pool once you register to vote (compulsory here however).

Maybe in the US, one could argue that regestering to vote is a voluntary agreement to serve on a jury if called.

 

[Ikerous]

Hm, I never have looked up the word before
Interesting how the definition isn't as intuitive as you'd think

But under what possible definition of servitude would conscription not apply?

Maybe in the US, one could argue that regestering to vote is a voluntary agreement to serve on a jury if called.

Good point. I hadn't thought about that

 

[bliink]

But under what possible definition of servitude would conscription not apply?

Perhaps the fact that a soldier is, by extrapolation, serving the entire nation/democracy, it is exempt.

Maybe servitude is something that occurs only under private parties.

Maybe servitude is a link of employment by a single employing entity.

Unpaid employment maybe?

Perhaps it is a personal service

A dictionary definition probably wouldn't suffice either, you'd need to find a legal one, maybe even ask a constitutional lawyer.

 

[ríomhaire]

To the supreme court!

 

[gick]

Judging from whos in the supreme court at the moment, I imagine they'll come down on the side of the draft.

 

[15357]

We have a similiar article on our constitution, but #21 nullifies it:

"In order to achieve better security, and national interests, as well as law and order, the rights included in this constitution can be placed on hold, revoked, or removed."


I imagine that the US has a similiar one as well.

 

[Sulkdodds]

"In order to achieve better security, and national interests, as well as law and order, the rights included in this constitution can be placed on hold, revoked, or removed."

Wow...that's...such a brilliant idea.

 

[Raeven0]

I imagine that the US has a similiar one as well.

We call it the USAPATRIOT Act

 

[Korgoth]

Actually, from what I've read and understand of the military draft here in the U.S. by law you only have to attend when summoned, and they trick you into "volunteering" as it were, because they read you some legal jargon and an oath of some sort then make you step forward and if you do thats you volunteering, but techinically if you refuse to step forward, you don't volunteer. I would imagine they would make life a living hell for you, and probably rough you up pretty good if you didn't though.

 

[bliink]

Wow...that's...such a brilliant idea.

The UK did that during WWI and WWII, IIRC... look up the DORA legislation, Defense of the Realm Act.

Actually, from what I've read and understand of the military draft here in the U.S. by law you only have to attend when summoned, and they trick you into "volunteering" as it were, because they read you some legal jargon and an oath of some sort then make you step forward and if you do thats you volunteering, but techinically if you refuse to step forward, you don't volunteer. I would imagine they would make life a living hell for you, and probably rough you up pretty good if you didn't though.

Yes, I have read this... I think you may be correct.

 

[SAJ]

Actually, from what I've read and understand of the military draft here in the U.S. by law you only have to attend when summoned, and they trick you into "volunteering" as it were, because they read you some legal jargon and an oath of some sort then make you step forward and if you do thats you volunteering, but techinically if you refuse to step forward, you don't volunteer....

Thats actually pretty interesting, but why is this coming up now ?
Are there moves to reinstate the military draft in the US at the moment?

 

[kirovman]

Thats actually pretty interesting, but why is this coming up now ?
Are there moves to reinstate the military draft in the US at the moment?

I think there was talk about it a couple of years back.

If the US wants to continue invading countries across the globe, it'll have to reinstate the draft.

 

[theotherguy]

Thats actually pretty interesting, but why is this coming up now ?
Are there moves to reinstate the military draft in the US at the moment?

It's very possible. The military is running very thin, and they're having to dip deep into the reserves and the national guard. Right now its still sustainable by volunterring, but if we enter Iran I can garuntee a draft.

 

[DreadLord]

I agree it does not apply to jury duty, as you have the free will to be a registered voter or not. However, I'm not sure that servitude applies to one's own country. When the ammendment was made it was intended to be applied to private parties, not the government. If called to service for your government, I think it's a completely different case.

 

[Lemonking]

We have a similiar article on our constitution, but #21 nullifies it:

"In order to achieve better security, and national interests, as well as law and order, the rights included in this constitution can be placed on hold, revoked, or removed."


I imagine that the US has a similiar one as well.

Fascist.

 

[kirovman]

lol Numbers.

The constitution might as well say:
"You all have human rights, unless we decide to withdraw them"

The constitution was written presumably to safeguard human rights in the event of national security crisis, when they are at their most vulnerable to exploitation.

 

[Yuri]

Wow, the Numbers constitution is f*cked up...

I'd like to see what the Supreme Court has to say about this, actually. But I'm sure every which thing was tried during Vietnam, and all of it failed for one reason or another.

 

[gick]

There was a clause in the constitution of 20s-30s Germany that basically said the same thing as yours numbers. It allowed the chancellor to assume total control of the government in the event that the country came under attack. It gave ultimate power to this guy called Adolf, which didnt turn out so well.

 

[bliink]

There was a clause in the constitution of 20s-30s Germany that basically said the same thing as yours numbers. It allowed the chancellor to assume total control of the government in the event that the country came under attack. It gave ultimate power to this guy called Adolf, which didnt turn out so well.

Most nations have clauses like this... Like I said, the UK enacted something similar, and I'm reasonably sure the US has one too.

 

[DreamThrall]

The UK did that during WWI and WWII, IIRC... look up the DORA legislation, Defense of the Realm Act.

Yeah... but weren't they getting actively bombed by the Germans at the time?

 

[Steve]

Here's the deal, and sorry if this was already posted, but I can't be bothered to read through this whole thread.

The Legislature is given the specific power of "raising and supporting armies" and that overrides the 13th amendment.

 

[Ikerous]

The Legislature is given the specific power of "raising and supporting armies" and that overrides the 13th amendment.

Not having a draft doesn't seem to remove that power in the slightest :/

 

[Steve]

No, it doesn't. But there's this "necessary and proper" clause, which says that the government may do what is "necessary and proper" to carry out its duties. Say we're fighting a big war, and not enough people are signing up. A draft is necessary.

 

[Viperidae]

'Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary.'

 

[Steve]

That, too.

 

[Tr0n]

If there is a draft then canada here I come. Also if you don't want to do jury duty then don't register to vote. That's what I'm doing.

 

[Steve]

If you don't vote, then I never want to hear you complaining about anything the U.S. government does. EVER.

 

[Tr0n]

But I rarely do tho. D:

 

[Steve]

Rarely is too often.

You knew it would come to this, Tr0n. You have failed me for the last time.

 

[bliink]

Also if you don't want to do jury duty then don't register to vote. That's what I'm doing.

Its the American way!

 

[Lemonking]

whats so bad about jury duty?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Rather than being drafted you have the option to go to jail.

Lame, you say?

Well, you probably aren't going to get shot, and room and board is free.

It's a matter of priorities. It is expected anyone would join the military without hesitation, but our forefathers could not have foreseen the twisted world we live in today.

 

[bliink]

It is expected anyone would join the military without hesitation, but our forefathers could not have foreseen the twisted world we live in today.

Then why would a draft exist? Wouldn't all have been volunteers?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Then why would a draft exist? Wouldn't all have been volunteers?

I append my previous comment.
It is expected any patriotic American would join the military to fight. The draft was instated as a measure to use foreigners and ensure those whom resist the military are punished.

 

[sullview]

The UK did that during WWI and WWII, IIRC... look up the DORA legislation, Defense of the Realm Act.

I thought I'd speak up on this point. While I know of no ammendment to the Constitution that allows us to revoke/change things at will, the President does have certain rights to limit our freedoms during severe security crisises (such as martial law). Abraham Lincoln did it (in fact, Abe Lincoln impinged upon our first ammendment rights more so than ANY president EVER, including Bush Jr. During the civil war, it was actually illegal in the North to speak out against the war effort, no joke). Other presidents, such as FDR during WWII (what with the Japanese internment and all) have done similiar things. So we do it too. Since prez's like FDR (a liberal) and Lincoln (a conservative) did it (both regarded as two of the best presidents we've ever had) then it does bring some legitimacy to the argument that removal of our freedoms can be justified, which, as I understand it, is one of Dubya's lines on the subject when he's defending the Patriot act.

If there is a draft then canada here I come. Also if you don't want to do jury duty then don't register to vote. That's what I'm doing.

Wow... just... wow. Opposing the democratic process, failure to support our country's judiciary process, and fleeing at the slightest indication that you might actually be called upon to do something for the nation that has given you so much? Have a blast.

 

[bliink]

The draft was instated as a measure to use foreigners and ensure those whom resist the military are punished.

Many a civilisation that builds armies out of slaves or conscripts has crashed as a near-direct result.

eg, greeks, romans, etc

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

The United States has been lucky so far. Recruitment until now has been pretty sufficient. It's downhill from here.
If there is a major war soon, the draft will be in full force.