Selective Service System

[GBurr]

Well Selective service sent me a letter today giving me till the 26th of October to register. I don't want to register because I think it sanctions the system. Makes it look legal. What do they need me to check that box for other than the appearance of consent. I want to show it for what it is, Slavery.

Any advice

[Danke]

Well Selective service sent me a letter today giving me till the 26th of October to register. I don't want to register because I think it sanctions the system. Makes it look legal. What do they need me to check that box for other than the appearance of consent. I want to show it for what it is, Slavery.

Any advice

Do a conditional response. Are you a "Citizen" liable to their Selective Service requirements?

PM me if you want ideas how to go about this.

From another researcher:


Quick note on surrender of inalienable rights...
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. ...
Since the beginning of the U.S.A., the militia have been under the authority of the commander in chief. The CiC has the authority to compel the militia to train, to fight, and die, if necessary, on his command.

Since the Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men to secure inalienable rights, it does seem contradictory that the same government could deny said rights, via conscription of the militia. That paradox is resolved by noting that governments have the power to govern those who consent. Since the militia are defined as male citizens, citizenship was and is voluntary, not imposed. For if it was imposed, at birth, it would be involuntary servitude, and unconstitutional.



BTW - in my CD ROM copy of the U.S. code, I found only ONE section that mentioned American nationals.
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.
Title 8, USC Sec 1502

Another side note:
Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "
To most people, this amendment is assumed to mean citizens have the right to bear arms. And when government (municipal, state, or federal) passes laws that impair that assumed right, all "hail" breaks loose.

To decode the amendment, one needs to recognize that two distinct groups are being referenced: militia and people.

We should be aware that people are sovereign, while the militia are not.

Militia are defined as the male citizens liable for military duty, under command to fight, and die, if necessary, in defense of the people's inalienable right to life, liberty and property.

In other words, the militia have volunteered to be obligated to fight and die, on command. They do NOT have inalienable rights to life, liberty or property, if under the obligation to serve.

Therefore, the citizen militia, by consent, surrendered their inalienable right to life, liberty and private property, in exchange for political liberty. They may be regulated and restricted in the manner in which they bear arms.

Only the people who are NOT citizens / militia, have the "right" to bear arms, without the duty to fight and die on command. And sovereign Americans, free inhabitants, domiciled upon their private property are private property themselves. You should find that all gun bans do not extend to guns on private property (*real estate is NOT private property, by legal definition).

[Reason]

hate to say it but just do it.

trying to fight it is on the same level as trying to fight paying your income tax

being a political activist in prison won't help C4L very much

[Pauls' Revere]

Is the selective service still sexist requiring only men to sign up?

[SimpleName]

Just signing up seems to be the best choice. I did. I absolutely hated it, but it will be sure torture if you don't. I would recommend it more if you are planning on actively spreading our message or running for public office at some point. Plus, Canada may pass a law that allows draft dodgers (at least the adamant ones) to move there. That may cause big personal problems, but if you are so inclined, it may soon be possible.

[youngbuck]

When I renewed my driver's license at DMV I was automatically signed up for the SSS.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well Selective service sent me a letter today giving me till the 26th of October to register. I don't want to register because I think it sanctions the system. Makes it look legal. What do they need me to check that box for other than the appearance of consent. I want to show it for what it is, Slavery.

Any advice

If you don't register, you won't get any Federal loans, unemployment, etc. Depends on how self-reliant you are. If you can get by with your own business or whatever, try not registering.

[virgil47]

In my opinion if you are not willing to register then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Plain and simple. Not willing to be called on to defend our nation if needed then you have no business making any decisions by voting. When you register you are not joining the military you are simply making yourself available if our country is invaded and trained people are needed to defend it. The draft went away a long time ago and it most likely will never be back. If you don't think this country is worth defending or you are afraid of conflict you may be able to get objector status.

[Danke]

In my opinion if you are not willing to register then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Plain and simple. Not willing to be called on to defend our nation if needed then you have no business making any decisions by voting. When you register you are not joining the military you are simply making yourself available if our country is invaded and trained people are needed to defend it. The draft went away a long time ago and it most likely will never be back. If you don't think this country is worth defending or you are afraid of conflict you may be able to get objector status.

Waiting for the punch line...

[Matt Collins]

In my opinion if you are not willing to register then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Plain and simple. Not willing to be called on to defend our nation if needed then you have no business making any decisions by voting. When you register you are not joining the military you are simply making yourself available if our country is invaded and trained people are needed to defend it. The draft went away a long time ago and it most likely will never be back. If you don't think this country is worth defending or you are afraid of conflict you may be able to get objector status.Uhh... you must be new here :confused:


1 - conscription is not Constitutional.

2 - no one is arguing that they are not willing to fight if there is a legitimate threat

3 - there was (somewhat serious) talk just last year about reinstating the draft

[youngbuck]

In my opinion if you are not willing to register then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Plain and simple. Not willing to be called on to defend our nation if needed then you have no business making any decisions by voting. When you register you are not joining the military you are simply making yourself available if our country is invaded and trained people are needed to defend it. The draft went away a long time ago and it most likely will never be back. If you don't think this country is worth defending or you are afraid of conflict you may be able to get objector status.

What if you'd rather be part of the militia instead of a standing army controlled by a tyrannical federal government?

[cindy25]

the whole point of the SSS registration is so they know where you are; since they already know there is no point to not registering. of course this nonsense should be abolished but Reagan chickened out and listened to the criminal Weinberger instead of keeping his promise.

[Pericles]

What if you'd rather be part of the militia instead of a standing army controlled by a tyrannical federal government?

You are part of the militia:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

When you are "drafted" you are called forth as an individual militia member.

Those who want to use the "involuntary servitude" defense need to apply that to the militia, which might be interesting if you want to claim that the Constitution is therefore contradictory in as much as there is Constitutional authority to organize the militia and call them forth.

Not to mention the effect this has on those who claim the 2A only applies to the militia - well news flash - the militia is almost everyone.

[virgil47]

Uhh... you must be new here :confused:


1 - conscription is not Constitutional.

2 - no one is arguing that they are not willing to fight if there is a legitimate threat

3 - there was (somewhat serious) talk just last year about reinstating the draft

Golly gee mr. collins I'm such a newbie because I've been here six whole months less than you.

1.- We are not talking about conscription we are talking about registration.

2.- you are correct no one is arguing that they are not willing to fight just where they are located in the event fighting becomes necessary.

3.- not going to happen as long as the progressives are running the country.

[virgil47]

What if you'd rather be part of the militia instead of a standing army controlled by a tyrannical federal government?

Guess what, all males between the ages of 16 and 45 are automatically members of the militia. Being a member of the militia puts you under the control of the fed. gov.

[pcosmar]

Guess what.
Though I am long past the age limits, I am also long past recognizing the legitimacy of the federal government.
Any appearance of cooperation or recognition are purely a survival tactic. and should not convey the reality of any loyalty or respect.

[virgil47]

Guess what.
Though I am long past the age limits, I am also long past recognizing the legitimacy of the federal government.
Any appearance of cooperation or recognition are purely a survival tactic. and should not convey the reality of any loyalty or respect.

Though I too am well past the age of being an automatic militia member I still respect and even revere to a degree the foundation and ideal behind our country. I am not a fan of what it has become but I believe in what it can be again.

[Danke]

Guess what, all males between the ages of 16 and 45 are automatically members of the militia. Being a member of the militia puts you under the control of the fed. gov.

Common fallacy. Where's the contract?

[virgil47]

Common fallacy. Where's the contract?

Are you a citizen? If so there is the contract.

[Danke]

Are you a citizen? If so there is the contract.

nope.

[youngbuck]

nope.

The social contract Danke, the social contract!:rolleyes:

[virgil47]

nope.

Well there you go.

[Rael]

In my opinion if you are not willing to register then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Plain and simple. Not willing to be called on to defend our nation if needed then you have no business making any decisions by voting. When you register you are not joining the military you are simply making yourself available if our country is invaded and trained people are needed to defend it. The draft went away a long time ago and it most likely will never be back. If you don't think this country is worth defending or you are afraid of conflict you may be able to get objector status.

Not to be rude, but what the fuck is wrong with you?

OP: IMO just register and get your benefits. It's not like your going to go to war if they call you anyway right?

[virgil47]

Not to be rude, but what the fuck is wrong with you?

OP: IMO just register and get your benefits. It's not like your going to go to war if they call you anyway right?

Absolutely nothing wrong with me. I believe if you reap the benefits of living in the U.S. you should be willing to shoulder some of the responsibility. I'm just not into freeloading off of those that would fight for my right to bitch and complain.

[Rael]

Absolutely nothing wrong with me. I believe if you reap the benefits of living in the U.S. you should be willing to shoulder some of the responsibility. I'm just not into freeloading off of those that would fight for my right to bitch and complain.

Our nation has not needed to be defended in over 200 years. If it actually did, you wouldn't need to make it mandatory to defend it.

[virgil47]

Our nation has not needed to be defended in over 200 years. If it actually did, you wouldn't need to make it mandatory to defend it.

It appears as though are not at all familiar with things that our military does in addition to fighting such as helping in the event of national emergencies. You know floods, hurricanes, plagues and such. They also are tasked with helping those in other countries that need help in times of emergency. They helped in Malaysia after the tidal wave and they helped in Samoa as well. Today's military isn't just a fighting machine. They have many humanitarian missions and handle them well.

[Rael]

They also are tasked with helping those in other countries that need help in times of emergency. They helped in Malaysia after the tidal wave and they helped in Samoa as well. Today's military isn't just a fighting machine. They have many humanitarian missions and handle them well.

That's not our responsibility and it's unconstitutional.

[virgil47]

That's not our responsibility and it's unconstitutional.

Well I guess responsibility is in the eye of the beholder. Some will never step up to the plate and will be on welfare or the public dole rather than take responsibility and some will scream to be protected by the military but can not be bothered to assist in any way. I've found over the years that those that are naysayers when it comes to police or military are always the ones that scream the loudest for help. The old saw "but it's not my responsibility" has been the battle cry of liberals for the last 50 years.

[Danke]

Well I guess responsibility is in the eye of the beholder. Some will never step up to the plate and will be on welfare or the public dole rather than take responsibility and some will scream to be protected by the military but can not be bothered to assist in any way. I've found over the years that those that are naysayers when it comes to police or military are always the ones that scream the loudest for help. The old saw "but it's not my responsibility" has been the battle cry of liberals for the last 50 years.

Still waiting for the punch line...

Are you or have you been in the Military?

[virgil47]

Still waiting for the punch line...

Are you or have you been in the Military?

Yes I have been in the military. Have you?

[Danke]

Yes I have been in the military. Have you?

100+ combat mission over Iraq.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[heavenlyboy34]

Absolutely nothing wrong with me. I believe if you reap the benefits of living in the U.S. you should be willing to shoulder some of the responsibility. I'm just not into freeloading off of those that would fight for my right to bitch and complain.

The problem with this argument is that it presumes a 1) voluntary contract between the State and the citizen 2) the citizen is property of the State.

The only property a person has any moral obligation to defend is what is rightfully his. As long as the current establishment exists (where citizens are more like shareholders in a corporation than individual property owners), one cannot say that volunteering in the State's military is a form of "repaying society".

The proper way to "repay society" is to be a productive worker and not harm others. Another problem with your argument is that it is subjective. As long as there is no objective measure of how the State's existence benefits us, we cannot "repay" it. In fact, the national debt seems to show that the State owes citizens multiple trillions of dollars.

[virgil47]

100+ combat mission over Iraq.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

My active service days were in the sixties during a totally different police action. I did spend a few years in the ready reserve in the 70's and 80's but diabetes caught up with me and that ended my military participation. I am still employed by the military and do indeed see and hear about much of the humanitarian work that the military does.

[virgil47]

The problem with this argument is that it presumes a 1) voluntary contract between the State and the citizen 2) the citizen is property of the State.

The only property a person has any moral obligation to defend is what is rightfully his. As long as the current establishment exists (where citizens are more like shareholders in a corporation than individual property owners), one cannot say that volunteering in the State's military is a form of "repaying society".

The proper way to "repay society" is to be a productive worker and not harm others. Another problem with your argument is that it is subjective. As long as there is no objective measure of how the State's existence benefits us, we cannot "repay" it. In fact, the national debt seems to show that the State owes citizens multiple trillions of dollars.

So you are saying that we live in a nation of morals not a nation of laws? You sound like a typical member of the "me first" generation.

So you say there is no objective measure of how the state benefits us. Well if their are no benefits to living in a cohesive society why do 99.9999% of the people on earth choose to do so. Think about it and I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some reasons you might owe your well being and safety to society as a whole.

[Danke]

The problem with this argument is that it presumes a 1) voluntary contract between the State and the citizen 2) the citizen is property of the State.

The only property a person has any moral obligation to defend is what is rightfully his. As long as the current establishment exists (where citizens are more like shareholders in a corporation than individual property owners), one cannot say that volunteering in the State's military is a form of "repaying society".

The proper way to "repay society" is to be a productive worker and not harm others. Another problem with your argument is that it is subjective. As long as there is no objective measure of how the State's existence benefits us, we cannot "repay" it. In fact, the national debt seems to show that the State owes citizens multiple trillions of dollars.

haha, yep: http://www.serve.gov/

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

[Matt Collins]

1.- We are not talking about conscription we are talking about registration.There is no need to have registration unless conscription is planned.

3.- not going to happen as long as the progressives are running the country.
Really? A Democrat member of Congress proposed just a couple of years ago about bringing back a draft.

See this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2746094&page=1

[Matt Collins]

Absolutely nothing wrong with me. I believe if you reap the benefits of living in the U.S. you should be willing to shoulder some of the responsibility. I'm just not into freeloading off of those that would fight for my right to bitch and complain.I'm not into freeloading either, and I don't. But I'm also not into fighting or dying for someone's political pet project either.:rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

It appears as though are not at all familiar with things that our military does in addition to fighting such as helping in the event of national emergencies. You know floods, hurricanes, plagues and such.And that should be left up to the State governments.

They also are tasked with helping those in other countries that need help in times of emergency. They helped in Malaysia after the tidal wave and they helped in Samoa as well. Today's military isn't just a fighting machine. They have many humanitarian missions and handle them well.And that should be left up to private charities.... using our money to spend on other people is a Robin Hood form of theft.

[Matt Collins]

So you say there is no objective measure of how the state benefits us. Well if their are no benefits to living in a cohesive society why do 99.9999% of the people on earth choose to do so. Think about it and I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some reasons you might owe your well being and safety to society as a whole.I don't owe my safety and well being to anyone other than myself. It's called personal responsibility :rolleyes:


No one else has a duty to protect, clothe, or feed me; that's my job. If people want to volunteer to help others in a charitable manner, they are free to do so. But the government using the force of law is not charity, it's force.

[Pericles]

There is no need to have registration unless conscription is planned.

Really? A Democrat member of Congress proposed just a couple of years ago about bringing back a draft.

See this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2746094&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2746094&page=1)

Selective Service runs that every year, and Rangel introduces legislation to resume the draft every Congress, and it has been thus for the last 20 years. Nothing different will happen this time.

[tangent4ronpaul]

So you don't want to be in the military...

Consider: Amish, Menonite, Quaker... but you might get drafted anyway and made a medic.

If you are realy brave, you could put down Muslim or - eek! - Wohabii - They would probably try finding some way to exclude you...

Consider: NOAA, CDC, Merchant Marine - they are all "uniformed services" and count toward military service. Ditto, the coast guard - but some coast guard units are patrolling off the Iraqi coast right now.

It's my understanding that they can make you register, they can make you show up to be sworn in - but they can't make you take that oath! it's eithor stepping forward, or actually entering into the oath. If you refuse to do that, you are not in the military and while they will yell at you and try to pressure you to do it, they can't make you take it. You have to do that voluntairily.

You could also enlist. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but if you aquire a skill set and/or language and then enlist, there is a really good chance you could route yourself to a vacation - er, I mean duty in your country of choice for a couple of years... <wink!> doing a lot of practice tests for your mil placement exam and acing that will generally give you your choice of assignment. Best bets for service are air force or coast guard.

You could also try ROTC - that used to be good for a deferment and you came out as an officer.

-t

[Pericles]

The problem with this argument is that it presumes a 1) voluntary contract between the State and the citizen 2) the citizen is property of the State.

The only property a person has any moral obligation to defend is what is rightfully his. As long as the current establishment exists (where citizens are more like shareholders in a corporation than individual property owners), one cannot say that volunteering in the State's military is a form of "repaying society".

The proper way to "repay society" is to be a productive worker and not harm others. Another problem with your argument is that it is subjective. As long as there is no objective measure of how the State's existence benefits us, we cannot "repay" it. In fact, the national debt seems to show that the State owes citizens multiple trillions of dollars.

Do you have a Social Security Number?