Why doesn't the 13th Amendment nullify a Draft?

[RileyE104]

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.

If the 13th Amendment doesn't allow "involuntary servitude," then how can a Draft be forced upon the People?

Has this defense ever been used by people refusing to be drafted, and why would this defense not work?


EDIT:

Now that I think of it, how are we even forced to pay Income Tax? Is that not a form of Involuntary Servitude?


We should start a 13th Amendment movement, similar to "Tenthers," as the MSM likes to call us...

[Stary Hickory]

The draft is unconstitutional. And ought to be abolished.

[RileyE104]

Ugh.. I really wish this idea would go viral.. With all that's going on right now, we could win over enough people to get a bill like this passed..

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr042601B.htm

[noxagol]

Because the government says so.

[RileyE104]

Because the government says so.

With that kind of attitude, these forums are useless.. :p

http://i40.tinypic.com/qznbt4.gif


DEFINITION: Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion.

[noxagol]

With that kind of attitude, these forums are useless.. :p

http://i40.tinypic.com/qznbt4.gif


DEFINITION: Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion.

I'm answering honestly. The government is the one deciding what is and isn't constitutional. That is why the 13th amendment does not apply to the draft, because the government says it doesn't.

[tremendoustie]

I'm answering honestly. The government is the one deciding what is and isn't constitutional. That is why the 13th amendment does not apply to the draft, because the government says it doesn't.

Yep, the government does whatever it wants. In practice, they are really not bound by laws or the constitution.

The op is right -- it should be considered to have abolished these things, but the government has never required logical consistency of itself.

If we want them to behave decently, it is up to us to make it happen. Mainly, at this time, this means opening other people's eyes to the abuse, so they do not continue to tolerate it.

[Captain Bryan]

Ugh.. I really wish this idea would go viral.. With all that's going on right now, we could win over enough people to get a bill like this passed..

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr042601B.htm

I would love for him to reintroduce that one.

[foofighter20x]

To answer the OP's question:

Arver v. United States (1918) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html)

Essentially SCOTUS said this:
the scope of intent behind the 13th amendment was slavery only, and that did not intended to affect Congress's military powers (especially since a draft was used to win the Civil War).



Never mind all the rhetoric out of the War of 1812 about how conscription was clearly unconstitutional, though. :rolleyes:

[Pericles]

Only if you think the 13A removed the power of Congress to call forth the militia.

Every male citizen (with some exceptions) is a member of the unorganized militia, and the draft is a selective calling forth of the militia, within the power of Congress.

[nate895]

Only if you think the 13A removed the power of Congress to call forth the militia.

Every male citizen (with some exceptions) is a member of the unorganized militia, and the draft is a selective calling forth of the militia, within the power of Congress.

It isn't entirely the same because you can't force the militia to cross foreign borders. You can order someone drafted into the US Army to cross borders.

[Pericles]

It isn't entirely the same because you can't force the militia to cross foreign borders. You can order someone drafted into the US Army to cross borders.

So if Congress exercises it power to declare war on country X, and calls forth the militia, said militia is not obligated to attack country X as part of the war?

[nate895]

So if Congress exercises it power to declare war on country X, and calls forth the militia, said militia is not obligated to attack country X as part of the war?

They are only obligated to defend our borders. That's been the common law concerning militias since they were started in England.

[Pericles]

They are only obligated to defend our borders. That's been the common law concerning militias since they were started in England.

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;


I don't see where the authority to employ the militia in the Service of the United States limits that employ to the internal territory of the United States.

[nate895]

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;


I don't see where the authority to employ the militia in the Service of the United States limits that employ to the internal territory of the United States.

The reason is that they didn't have to do that. It's the same reason why there isn't a law against murder in most states: It has always been assumed to be illegal. By common law (which is our system of law), the militia is only obligated to meet a military threat of invasion. That was the problem in conquering Canada in the War of 1812, not enough militia would cross the border voluntarily, and the Army had no way of ordering them to do so.

[torchbearer]

The reason is that they didn't have to do that. It's the same reason why there isn't a law against murder in most states: It has always been assumed to be illegal. By common law (which is our system of law), the militia is only obligated to meet a military threat of invasion. That was the problem in conquering Canada in the War of 1812, not enough militia would cross the border voluntarily, and the Army had no way of ordering them to do so.

we don't have common law in louisiana. we have napoleonic law.

[nate895]

we don't have common law in louisiana. we have napoleonic law.

I know. Louisiana is the reason why I put "most states" for laws against murder. Louisiana does have a mixed system, so if they don't have a code reference for the militia, then it would be covered by common law as well.

[Pericles]

The reason is that they didn't have to do that. It's the same reason why there isn't a law against murder in most states: It has always been assumed to be illegal. By common law (which is our system of law), the militia is only obligated to meet a military threat of invasion. That was the problem in conquering Canada in the War of 1812, not enough militia would cross the border voluntarily, and the Army had no way of ordering them to do so.

Seems like the militia didn't get the word. Only CT did not allow their militia to participate in the War of 1812 invasion of Canada (some NY units refused and some NY units participated), and militia units did participate in the invasion of Mexico in 1846 and Cuba as part of the Spanish-American War.

The poor performance of militia units in actual service, has been one of the main reasons for the increase in strength the the active army after these wars.

1821 expansion from 2 regular infantry regiments of 1808 to 7, and the 1855 expansion to 10 infantry and 5 mounted regiments. Finally, the state militias were essentially killed by the creation of the National Guard in 1903.

[RileyE104]

To answer the OP's question:

Arver v. United States (1918) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html)

Essentially SCOTUS said this:
the scope of intent behind the 13th amendment was slavery only, and that did not intended to affect Congress's military powers (especially since a draft was used to win the Civil War).



Never mind all the rhetoric out of the War of 1812 about how conscription was clearly unconstitutional, though. :rolleyes:

The SCOTUS's response is stupid.

With their reasoning, I could argue that Blacks do not have Constitutional rights because the establishment of the Constitution was not intended to give them rights!

Isn't that WHY we have freaking AMENDMENTS to the Constitution? The 13th Amendment FREED the slaves, made SLAVERY illegal, as well as ALL FORMS of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE...

If the 13th Amendment was JUST to "free slaves," then why the hell did they even include the part about involuntary servitude?

[Pericles]

The SCOTUS's response is stupid.

With their reasoning, I could argue that Blacks do not have Constitutional rights because the establishment of the Constitution was not intended to give them rights!

Isn't that WHY we have freaking AMENDMENTS to the Constitution? The 13th Amendment FREED the slaves, made SLAVERY illegal, as well as ALL FORMS of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE...

If the 13th Amendment was JUST to "free slaves," then why the hell did they even include the part about involuntary servitude?

Bonded and indentured servants

[nate895]

Seems like the militia didn't get the word. Only CT and NY did not allow their militia to participate in the War of 1812 invasion of Canada, and militia units did participate in the invasion of Mexico in 1846 and Cuba as part of the Spanish-American War.

Yes, it was all voluntary, however. The entire militia wasn't forced to invade Mexico, only those who volunteered to do so did.

[Rael]

Your making the common mistake of assuming that the government cares what the constitution says.

[Matt Collins]

The draft is unconstitutional. And ought to be abolished.
Even without the 13th argument, the Constitution gives the Feds the power to raise an army. That is NOT the same as the power of conscription.


.

[RileyE104]

Even without the 13th argument, the Constitution gives the Feds the power to raise an army. That is NOT the same as the power of conscription.


.

I remember last year I had an argument with my History teacher because he was trying to justify the Draft to the class and I said that it directly interferes with my unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But that in itself should have been enough to prevent slavery.. I think that's the biggest mistake this country ever made. That and allowing bankers to control the country...

[foofighter20x]

The SCOTUS's response is stupid.

With their reasoning, I could argue that Blacks do not have Constitutional rights because the establishment of the Constitution was not intended to give them rights!

Isn't that WHY we have freaking AMENDMENTS to the Constitution? The 13th Amendment FREED the slaves, made SLAVERY illegal, as well as ALL FORMS of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE...

If the 13th Amendment was JUST to "free slaves," then why the hell did they even include the part about involuntary servitude?

Never said I agreed with the ruling. Just telling him what the court held.