PDA

View Full Version : Is conscription a violation of the 13th Amendment




Anti Federalist
07-29-2010, 07:12 PM
Is a draft or forced conscription a violation of the 13th Amendment, specifically prohibiting involuntary servitude.

Danke
07-29-2010, 07:14 PM
No, because it is voluntary.

low preference guy
07-29-2010, 07:15 PM
yes. duh.

djdellisanti4
07-29-2010, 07:20 PM
We might get 100% on this poll.

Anti Federalist
07-29-2010, 07:23 PM
We might get 100% on this poll.

Kludge would come in and vote "no" just to foul it up.

Or maybe Danke.

:p

Danke
07-29-2010, 07:25 PM
Kludge would come in and vote "no" just to foul it up.

Or maybe Danke.

:p

Not a poll.

jmdrake
07-29-2010, 07:28 PM
Well the 13th amendment only bars slavery for those not convicted of a crime. So if you don't sign up for selective service they can declare you a criminal and force you to serve. If you do sign up they'll just say you "volunteered". :p

low preference guy
07-29-2010, 07:30 PM
No, because it is voluntary.

give us your perspective on what's voluntary and what isn't. i'm really curious cause i haven't heard it before.

Anti Federalist
07-29-2010, 07:30 PM
Not a poll.

That made me laugh.

Anti Federalist
07-29-2010, 07:33 PM
Well the 13th amendment only bars slavery for those not convicted of a crime. So if you don't sign up for selective service they can declare you a criminal and force you to serve. If you do sign up they'll just say you "volunteered". :p

That's pretty scary, you got their thought patterns down, to a "t".

;)

Matt Collins
07-29-2010, 07:34 PM
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.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Matt Collins
07-29-2010, 07:35 PM
Well the 13th amendment only bars slavery for those not convicted of a crime. So if you don't sign up for selective service they can declare you a criminal and force you to serve. If you do sign up they'll just say you "volunteered". :p
So in other words, it's ok for the government to force slavery :mad:

RokiLothbard
07-29-2010, 07:36 PM
Even without the 13th ammendment I'm not seeing any specific grant of that power. And I don't accept any implied powers argument either.

constituent
07-29-2010, 07:36 PM
Suddenly we're constitutionalists...

Matt Collins
07-29-2010, 07:38 PM
Even without the 13th ammendment I'm not seeing any specific grant of that power. And I don't accept any implied powers argument either.
The power to raise an army is not the power to conscript.

Anti Federalist
07-29-2010, 07:40 PM
Amendment 13

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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Of course, that doesn't apply if you are the government.

They can enslave you.

Interesting to note, this is not a draft case, but one vs. the State of Florida for compulsory citizen labor for road work.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

There is no merit in the claim that a man's labor is property, the taking of which without compensation by the state for building and maintenance of public roads violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. That Amendment was intended to preserve and protect fundamental rights long recognized under the commonlaw law system

Conceding for some purposes labor must be considered as property, it is evident from what already has been said that to require work on the public roads has never been regarded as a deprivation of either liberty or property.

So saith the SCROTUS 21 February, 1916

Pericles
07-29-2010, 09:43 PM
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;



Who is the militia?


"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee


§ 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/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/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.

nate895
07-29-2010, 10:15 PM
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;



Who is the militia?


"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee


§ 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/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/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.

The militia is a separate institution from the Army that you would be drafted into. The militia has always been, from the time before William the Conqueror took the throne, limited to defense against invasions at home. That is why we could not conquer Canada in the War of 1812, because the New England militia simply refused to cross the border, as was their right. Furthermore, the states themselves are responsible for the organization of their own militias when Congress calls the militia into service. Congress usurps that authority when it drafts militiamen into the service of the United States Army.

Erentheca
08-29-2011, 09:28 PM
We nearly had freedom from conscription guaranteed by the 2nd amendment; a proposed version read as follows:

"That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This freedom from military compultion was stricken from the 2nd amendment thanks to the objection of Elbridge Gerry. This is in a bit of irony since he was also quoted to say:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Apparently, he did not find the practice of conscription itself to be one of the grossest, if not the most vile violation of individual liberty, tantamount to slavery to the state at best, murder by the state at worst. Nor did he see the threat imposed by failing to stop the grievous practice of conscription, that it could very easily be used as part of a trifecta assault on liberty, to conscript one portion, to require another to pay for illegal war through illegal means, and to despotically use the conscripts and the illegally confiscated money to destroy another people, also violating their natural rights.

Perhaps he assumed that the indirect protection of natural militia powers would prevent all of the above. Now they have usurped the powers of the militia, folded them into the national army, and can force private citizens, at will, into foreign wars, from which they have no personal benefit. I guess he didn't see that coming. No one is perfect I guess.

CaptainAmerica
08-29-2011, 09:37 PM
If the nation faced an imminent threat of invasion I guarantee that most men would enlist or at least be prepared to fight.Lincoln was the first dictator to force men into fighting. The CSA raised militia volunteers and pound for pound fought smarter and harder than the Union anyhow.

Anti Federalist
08-29-2011, 09:37 PM
Wonder what I started this poll for...hmm?

I mean, obvious poll is obvious.

Somehow I'm thinking it had something to do with proving a point to somebody or another, possibly constituent.

Ah well...carry on.

Bordillo
08-29-2011, 09:39 PM
Id support a draft if voting to go to war was done by the people

CaptainAmerica
08-29-2011, 09:41 PM
So in other words, it's ok for the government to force slavery :mad: They can try.

CaptainAmerica
08-29-2011, 09:41 PM
Id support a draft if voting to go to war was done by the people Oh really? Haha. Obviously the u.s. is a constitutional republic for a reason.........because mob rule would send us everywhere just as quick as you can say "Iran is developing nukes".

Erentheca
08-29-2011, 10:05 PM
If the nation faced an imminent threat of invasion I guarantee that most men would enlist or at least be prepared to fight.Lincoln was the first dictator to force men into fighting.

Precisely. It is a fallacy to assume a nation state absolutely must possess conscription powers for national survival. I would make the same argument for taxation, that direct taxation is entirely unnecessary in a time of war, for if a nation only fights just wars, that is, wars of national defense, I doubt there would be any lacking in citizens who will rightly contribute funds, equipment, and other resources for defense. As the Civil War was by no means a just war, Lincoln therefore "needed" to force conscription and "needed" to employ fiat money, taxation by inflation, to win. Ironic that Lincoln should embrace the noble cause of freeing the slaves as a justification for war, when he, with ease, enslaved men to fight unto horrific death, to perpetuate that war.

Erentheca
08-29-2011, 10:13 PM
Oh really? Haha. Obviously the u.s. is a constitutional republic for a reason.........because mob rule would send us everywhere just as quick as you can say "Iran is developing nukes".

Haha, I love it! My sentiments exactly. Just as people now vote en masse to rob some of money to give it to themselves, they can just as easily deprive others of their liberty (and possibly lives) via conscription, based on any insane declaration made by the media or the bully pulpit of the President.

Rothbardian Girl
08-29-2011, 10:17 PM
A draft seems unnecessary. If people feel they are sufficiently threatened by an enemy, their loyalty to their loved ones and their property would ensure that they would take up arms to defend it. The only time when a draft becomes "necessary" is when our fearless leaders decide to embark on wasteful, useless military boondoggles in order to protect THEIR interests (not the interests of the people).

In short, yes, the draft is slavery to me. It's a gross violation of basic human freedom that should be apparent to any self-respecting friend of liberty. I'm shocked that this question even has to be asked on this forum.

CaptainAmerica
08-29-2011, 10:18 PM
Precisely. It is a fallacy to assume a nation state absolutely must possess conscription powers for national survival. I would make the same argument for taxation, that direct taxation is entirely unnecessary in a time of war, for if a nation only fights just wars, that is, wars of national defense, I doubt there would be any lacking in citizens who will rightly contribute funds, equipment, and other resources for defense. As the Civil War was by no means a just war, Lincoln therefore "needed" to force conscription and "needed" to employ fiat money, taxation by inflation, to win. Ironic that Lincoln should embrace the noble cause of freeing the slaves as a justification for war, when he, with ease, enslaved men to fight unto horrific death, to perpetuate that war. If a nation is not willing to fight for its existence at the right moment it has no reason to exist as a nation. I believe whole hearted in resisting war until imminent invasion and in voluntary military.

Teaser Rate
08-29-2011, 11:27 PM
Since the draft was invoked on multiple occasions since the ratification of the 13th Amendment without any successful legal challenges, I'd say that for all intents and purposes, it is perfectly constitutional.

I'm not a fan of the draft myself, but I could foresee situations under which the government would be justified to invoke it. WWII would be my best example.

Anti Federalist
08-29-2011, 11:50 PM
Since the draft was invoked on multiple occasions since the ratification of the 13th Amendment without any successful legal challenges, I'd say that for all intents and purposes, it is perfectly constitutional.

I'm not a fan of the draft myself, but I could foresee situations under which the government would be justified to invoke it. WWII would be my best example.

As is usually the case, what activity is prohibited to us, the mundanes, is perfectly legal for government to engage in.


The Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit the government from compelling citizens to perform certain civic duties, such as serving on a jury (Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct. 1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 [1973]) or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [1918]).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/13th+Amendment

Even when it clearly is a violation:


Kozminski limited involuntary servitude to those situations when the master subjects the servant to:

1.threatened or actual physical force,
2.threatened or actual state-imposed legal coercion or
3.fraud or deceit where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or mentally incompetent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

Knightskye
08-30-2011, 02:46 AM
If 100% voted no, they would all be wrong.

CaptainAmerica
08-30-2011, 02:54 AM
Since the draft was invoked on multiple occasions since the ratification of the 13th Amendment without any successful legal challenges, I'd say that for all intents and purposes, it is perfectly constitutional.

I'm not a fan of the draft myself, but I could foresee situations under which the government would be justified to invoke it. WWII would be my best example. I disagree. If the u.s. was in imminent danger and the citizens knew that an invasion was going to occur by an actual army of a foreign nation they would prepare for battle voluntarily. If people did not volunteer,what makes you think this nation is worth saving by inscription?Obviously if people are that far removed from defending their homes why would they have to be forced into submission of fighting for their nation they don't even give a damn about in the first place?Your logic for inscription makes no sense.

Inscription is for tyrants such as Lincoln the "great emancipator" who raised a federal military illegally against the Insurrection Act of 1807 and sent that military across state lines for power grabs. Inscription=slave military which serves tyrants.

For those of you who believe that a "draft" is legitimate , you fail to understand the reason the united states became the united states, and you fail to understand the 2nd amendment as well as your paradox of lacking in faith towards your own nation existing for the sake of defending individual liberty.

Icymudpuppy
08-30-2011, 08:39 AM
Haha, I love it! My sentiments exactly. Just as people now vote en masse to rob some of money to give it to themselves, they can just as easily deprive others of their liberty (and possibly lives) via conscription, based on any insane declaration made by the media or the bully pulpit of the President.

What if it was an open ballot and votes were recorded. All "YES" votes get drafted. "NO" votes get to stay home.

Teaser Rate
08-30-2011, 07:07 PM
As is usually the case, what activity is prohibited to us, the mundanes, is perfectly legal for government to engage in.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/13th+Amendment

Even when it clearly is a violation:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

Well, of course the government needs to be able to do certain things which its citizens cannot. Taxation is a good example of this.

If situations under which the individual's rights needed to be to limited for the greater good didn't exist, then we wouldn't need a government in the first place.


I disagree. If the u.s. was in imminent danger and the citizens knew that an invasion was going to occur by an actual army of a foreign nation they would prepare for battle voluntarily. If people did not volunteer,what makes you think this nation is worth saving by inscription?Obviously if people are that far removed from defending their homes why would they have to be forced into submission of fighting for their nation they don't even give a damn about in the first place?Your logic for inscription makes no sense.

Inscription is for tyrants such as Lincoln the "great emancipator" who raised a federal military illegally against the Insurrection Act of 1807 and sent that military across state lines for power grabs. Inscription=slave military which serves tyrants.

For those of you who believe that a "draft" is legitimate , you fail to understand the reason the united states became the united states, and you fail to understand the 2nd amendment as well as your paradox of lacking in faith towards your own nation existing for the sake of defending individual liberty.

The threats we face in the 21st century are of a different nature than the one we faced during the time of the founding. If you home ever gets hit by enemy fire, it will be from bombs falling out of the sky or suitcase nukes, not marching redcoats with muskets.

I can sympathize with your historical and philosophical arguments against the draft, but while you might not believe that America is not worth saving at all costs, I do.

donnay
08-30-2011, 07:13 PM
Well the 13th amendment only bars slavery for those not convicted of a crime.


"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ~Ayn Rand

MJU1983
08-30-2011, 07:21 PM
Since the draft was invoked on multiple occasions since the ratification of the 13th Amendment without any successful legal challenges, I'd say that for all intents and purposes, it is perfectly constitutional.

I'm not a fan of the draft myself, but I could foresee situations under which the government would be justified to invoke it. WWII would be my best example.

That means nothing.

I can't think of anytime it could justify a draft. Government doesn't own me, or my children.

Teaser Rate
08-30-2011, 07:25 PM
That means nothing.

I can't think of anytime it could justify a draft. Government doesn't own me, or my children.

What about WWII?

MJU1983
08-30-2011, 07:29 PM
What about WWII?

NO.

CaptainAmerica
08-30-2011, 07:29 PM
The threats we face in the 21st century are of a different nature than the one we faced during the time of the founding. If you home ever gets hit by enemy fire, it will be from bombs falling out of the sky or suitcase nukes, not marching redcoats with muskets. I can sympathize with your historical and philosophical arguments against the draft, but while you might not believe that America is not worth saving at all costs, I do. If you do not believe free humans can defend themselves why do you even bother believing in freedom? Your argument is irrational.

Teaser Rate
08-30-2011, 07:38 PM
NO.

So we should have just let Germany finish off the Holocaust and minded our own business? I see...


If you do not believe free humans can defend themselves why do you even bother believing in freedom? Your argument is irrational.

It's one thing for free humans to defend themselves from an incoming horde and another to stop an ICBM launched from 4,000 miles away. You act as if the only thing we need to do to remain safe is to form local militias and wait for the invaders to get within the range of our rifles.

MJU1983
08-30-2011, 07:40 PM
So we should have just let Germany finish off the Holocaust and minded our own business? I see...

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said. Get real.

Teaser Rate
08-30-2011, 07:44 PM
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said. Get real.

Seeing how you said that WWII didn't justify a draft and we needed one to fight it, I could only conclude that you believe that WWII wasn't worth fighting.

MJU1983
08-30-2011, 07:53 PM
Seeing how you said that WWII didn't justify a draft and we needed one to fight it, I could only conclude that you believe that WWII wasn't worth fighting.

Nothing justifies conscription. You can twist that however you want.

Danke
08-30-2011, 10:43 PM
Kludge would come in and vote "no" just to foul it up.

Or maybe Danke.

:p

Well, I have long given up on trying to educate this Forum. A wise member , Live free or Die, was banned. But just like the income tax, the draft is indeed voluntary. Therefore: Constitutional.


Edit: Lumping me with Kludge will surely bring the wrath of Amy against you. I don't normally stick up for gay closeted sailors, but may Mercy be upon you.

CaptainAmerica
08-30-2011, 11:54 PM
So we should have just let Germany finish off the Holocaust and minded our own business? I see...



It's one thing for free humans to defend themselves from an incoming horde and another to stop an ICBM launched from 4,000 miles away. You act as if the only thing we need to do to remain safe is to form local militias and wait for the invaders to get within the range of our rifles. Stopping an ICBM is not going to happen by drafting people. WTF are you on? You seriously are delusional if you believe that any nation would do well at invading our country.

cindy25
08-31-2011, 01:26 AM
rather than saying slavery might be better to say involuntary servitude, although it is slavery
and both are banned by 13th amendment

actually the 13th is not even applicable or needed. even Lincoln's conscription was unconstitutional, and a SC decision by CJ Taney
would have said so had Taney not died before it could be published.

CaptainAmerica
08-31-2011, 01:28 AM
rather than saying slavery might be better to say involuntary servitude, although it is slavery
and both are banned by 13th amendment

actually the 13th is not even applicable or needed. even Lincoln's conscription was unconstitutional, and a SC decision by CJ Taney
would have said so had Taney not died before it could be published. Lincoln was a complete a-hole. I just wrote a big thing about him in one of the other posts.hah,and people believe conscription is justified because Lincoln and a-holes like him.