Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: ironwing
Of course, had the buttheads (Carter and Congress) bothered to read the Constitution they would have recognized that the draft is illegal and found some lawful way to express their displeasure with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rather than mandating draft registration. On the other hand, the tactic seems to have worked. After nine years, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, largely in response to the relentless psychological beating imposed by the draft registration requirement in the U.S.
Article. XIII.
[Proposed 1865; Ratified 1865]
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.
Eh... it'd take some fancy pants lawyers and some easily swayed Supreme Court Judges to convince them that the Draft is illegal under those pretenses.
What I hate is, just like what is done with the First Amendment, is people seeing things that aren't there in something written before our time. I won't get into the First Amendment argument, that's wholly P&N and I don't care to get into that even there, for they are rabid and armchair lawyers...
But come on. The entirety of Amendment 13 is discussing slavery. Involuntary servitude is a means to describe someone being forced into doing labor, aka slavery without all of the slavery connotations, such as whips and whatnot.
You think, during the times when the Draft was used for the first time, or later, that it hadn't passed down to all the people in Washington? The Supreme Court had to have reviewed it, and Amendment 13 had been around for a few years so it was readily known. And while I don't know if it was the case, but I wouldn't doubt if someone tried to argue that it was a form of slavery/involuntary servitude, and took it to the Supreme Court. And it sounds like it must have been readily rejected since it hasn't been made illegal, not then, nor now. Just hasn't been used for reasons discussed earlier.
And besides, if Congress and the President write it into law, and the Supreme Court doesn't object, then it is in fact not illegal, until the Supreme Court deems otherwise.
I fail to see how the Draft can be seen as slavery or involuntary servitude.
The Court has ruled on it, in Butler v. Perry. They deemed that service in jury duty and military and the like was not negated by the 13th amendment.
"Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] 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."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...t=us&vol=240&invol=328
So as far as the US government is concerned, it is decidedely constitutional to have a draft. I remember a quote in my university newspaper years back where they had asked students about their opinion of having a draft. One student said, "Even though the Constitution allows it, I think that the draft is unconstitutional." This wonderful paradox seems to be an apt description of certain people's beliefs when it comes to the draft.