[Sindawe]

109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 4752
2D SESSION


To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United
States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform
a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance
of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services




A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons
in the United States, including women, between the ages
of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service
or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the na-
tional defense and homeland security, and for other pur-
poses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the
5 ``Universal National Service Act of 2006''.
2
1 (b) TABLE CONTENTS.--The table of contents for
OF

2 this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. National service obligation.
Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.
Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.
Sec. 5. Induction.
Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.
Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.
Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.
Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of military se-
lective service Act.
Sec. 12. Definitions.

3 SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

4 (a) OBLIGATION SERVICE.--It is the obligation
FOR

5 of every citizen of the United States, and every other per-
6 son residing in the United States, who is between the ages
7 of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as
8 prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provi-
9 sions of this Act.
10 (b) FORM NATIONAL SERVICE.--National service
OF

11 under this Act shall be performed either--
12 (1) as a member of an active or reserve compo-
13 nent of the uniformed services; or
14 (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by
15 the President, promotes the national defense, includ-
16 ing national or community service and homeland se-
17 curity.




HR 4752 IH
3
1 (c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS.--The President
2 shall provide for the induction of persons covered by sub-
3 section (a) to perform national service under this Act.
4 (d) SELECTION MILITARY SERVICE.--Based
FOR

5 upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President
6 shall--
7 (1) determine the number of persons covered by
8 subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a
9 member of an active or reserve component of the
10 uniformed services; and
11 (2) select the individuals among those persons
12 who are to be inducted for military service under
13 this Act.
14 (e) CIVILIAN SERVICE.--Persons covered by sub-
15 section (a) who are not selected for military service under
16 subsection (d) shall perform their national service obliga-
17 tion under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to sub-
18 section (b)(2).
19 SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

20 (a) GENERAL RULE.--Except as otherwise provided
21 in this section, the period of national service performed
22 by a person under this Act shall be two years.
23 (b) GROUNDS EXTENSION.--At the discretion of
FOR

24 the President, the period of military service for a member




HR 4752 IH
4
1 of the uniformed services under this Act may be ex-
2 tended--
3 (1) with the consent of the member, for the
4 purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or
5 surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of
6 duty; or
7 (2) for the purpose of requiring the member to
8 compensate for any time lost to training for any
9 cause.
10 (c) EARLY TERMINATION.--The period of national
11 service for a person under this Act shall be terminated
12 before the end of such period under the following cir-
13 cumstances:
14 (1) The voluntary enlistment and active service
15 of the person in an active or reserve component of
16 the uniformed services for a period of at least two
17 years, in which case the period of basic military
18 training and education actually served by the person
19 shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.
20 (2) The admission and service of the person as
21 a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military
22 Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the
23 United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard
24 Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine
25 Academy.


HR 4752 IH
5
1 (3) The enrollment and service of the person in
2 an officer candidate program, if the person has
3 signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission
4 in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve
5 on active duty if such a commission is offered upon
6 completion of the program.
7 (4) Such other grounds as the President may
8 establish.
9 SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.--The President shall prescribe
11 such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
12 (b) MATTER BE COVERED REGULATIONS.--
TO BY

13 Such regulations shall include specification of the fol-
14 lowing:
15 (1) The types of civilian service that may be
16 performed for a person's national service obligation
17 under this Act.
18 (2) Standards for satisfactory performance of
19 civilian service and of penalties for failure to per-
20 form civilian service satisfactorily.
21 (3) The manner in which persons shall be se-
22 lected for induction under this Act, including the
23 manner in which those selected will be notified of
24 such selection.




HR 4752 IH
6
1 (4) All other administrative matters in connec-
2 tion with the induction of persons under this Act
3 and the registration, examination, and classification
4 of such persons.
5 (5) A means to determine questions or claims
6 with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or
7 deferment from induction under this Act, including
8 questions of conscientious objection.
9 (6) Standards for compensation and benefits
10 for persons performing their national service obliga-
11 tion under this Act through civilian service.
12 (7) Such other matters as the President deter-
13 mines necessary to carry out this Act.
14 (c) USE PRIOR ACT.--To the extent determined
OF

15 appropriate by the President, the President may use for
16 purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Mili-
17 tary Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.),
18 including procedures for registration, selection, and induc-
19 tion.
20 SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

21 (a) IN GENERAL.--Every person subject to induction
22 for national service under this Act, except those whose
23 training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this
24 Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such
25 service at the time and place specified by the President.


HR 4752 IH
7
1 (b) AGE LIMITS.--A person may be inducted under
2 this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and
3 has not attained the age of 42.
4 (c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION.--A person subject to in-
5 duction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a
6 time other than the time at which the person is otherwise
7 called for induction.
8 (d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION.--Every person
9 subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction,
10 be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified
11 as to fitness to perform national service. The President
12 may apply different classification standards for fitness for
13 military service and fitness for civilian service.
14 SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

15 (a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.--A person who is pur-
16 suing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in
17 a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall
18 be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed
19 until the person--
20 (1) obtains a high school diploma;
21 (2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course
22 of study; or
23 (3) attains the age of 20.
24 (b) HARDSHIP DISABILITY.--Deferments from
AND

25 national service under this Act may be made for--


HR 4752 IH
8
1 (1) extreme hardship; or
2 (2) physical or mental disability.
3 (c) TRAINING CAPACITY.--The President may post-
4 pone or suspend the induction of persons for military serv-
5 ice under this Act as necessary to limit the number of per-
6 sons receiving basic military training and education to the
7 maximum number that can be adequately trained.
8 (d) TERMINATION.--No deferment or postponement
9 of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause
10 of such deferment or postponement ceases.
11 SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

12 (a) QUALIFICATIONS.--No person may be inducted
13 for military service under this Act unless the person is
14 acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and
15 meets the same health and physical qualifications applica-
16 ble under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to
17 persons seeking original enlistment in a regular compo-
18 nent of the Armed Forces.
19 (b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE.--No person shall be
20 liable for induction under this Act who--
21 (1) is serving, or has served honorably for at
22 least six months, in any component of the uniformed
23 services on active duty; or
24 (2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the
25 United States Military Academy, the United States


HR 4752 IH
9
1 Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Acad-
2 emy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
3 Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy
4 accredited State maritime academy, a member of the
5 Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the
6 naval aviation college program, so long as that per-
7 son satisfactorily continues in and completes at least
8 two years training therein.
9 SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

10 (a) CLAIMS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.--Noth-
AS

11 ing in this Act shall be construed to require a person to
12 be subject to combatant training and service in the uni-
13 formed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held
14 moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously op-
15 posed to participation in war in any form.
16 (b) ALTERNATIVE NONCOMBATANT CIVILIAN
OR

17 SERVICE.--A person who claims exemption from combat-
18 ant training and service under subsection (a) and whose
19 claim is sustained by the local board shall--
20 (1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as de-
21 fined by the President), if the person is inducted
22 into the uniformed services; or
23 (2) be ordered by the local board, if found to
24 be conscientiously opposed to participation in such
25 noncombatant service, to perform national civilian


HR 4752 IH
10
1 service for the period specified in section 3(a) and
2 subject to such regulations as the President may
3 prescribe.
4 SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

5 (a) DISCHARGE.--Upon completion or termination of
6 the obligation to perform national service under this Act,
7 a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services
8 or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not
9 be subject to any further service under this Act.
10 (b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES.--
11 Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to
12 active service in the uniformed services of any person who
13 is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uni-
14 formed services.
15 SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILI-

16 TARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

17 (a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED.--Section 3(a) of the
18 Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is
19 amended--
20 (1) by striking ``male'' both places it appears;
21 (2) by inserting ``or herself'' after ``himself'';
22 and
23 (3) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the per-
24 son''.




HR 4752 IH
11
1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 16(a) of
2 the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a))
3 is amended by striking ``men'' and inserting ``persons''.
4 SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUC-

5 TION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE

6 SERVICE ACT.

7 (a) REGISTRATION.--Section 4 of the Military Selec-
8 tive Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by in-
9 serting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
10 ``(h) This section does not apply with respect to the
11 induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to
12 the Universal National Service Act of 2006.''.
13 (b) INDUCTION.--Section 17(c) of the Military Selec-
14 tive Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by
15 striking ``now or hereafter'' and all that follows through
16 the period at the end and inserting ``inducted pursuant
17 to the Universal National Service Act of 2006.''.
18 SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

19 In this Act:
20 (1) The term ``military service'' means service
21 performed as a member of an active or reserve com-
22 ponent of the uniformed services.
23 (2) The term ``Secretary concerned'' means the
24 Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army,
25 Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary


HR 4752 IH
12
1 of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast
2 Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to
3 matters concerning the National Oceanic and At-
4 mospheric Administration, and the Secretary of
5 Health and Human Services, with respect to matters
6 concerning the Public Health Service.
7 (3) The term ``United States'', when used in a
8 geographical sense, means the several States, the
9 District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is-
10 lands, and Guam.
11 (4) The term ``uniformed services'' means the
12 Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard,
13 commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and At-
14 mospheric Administration, and commissioned corps
15 of the Public Health Service.

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4752Your life is not your own, but is property of the State to use as it sees fit.

[geekWithA.45]

It's a class baiting political stunt:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.

[crit_boy]

I didn't read that whole thing. I don't think I have a problem with some sort of required service. I am a veteran. Service made me appreciate the country in a way I would not without my time.

It also makes you grow up and become independent. I have a couple friends that are nearing, or are 30 yrs old and their parents still give them money. Ridiculous.

[wingman]

The draft should never have been discontinued, the "professional army"
would still exist once you reenlisted voluntarily after 2 years. However
it should be for all statuses that would include our leaders children.

[RealGun]

Well, if it's Rangel, he's just trying to create controversy for that evil Republican administration.:scrutiny: If this was seriously needed, I expect the initiative would be announced from the White House.

[gc70]

Rangel introduces this piece of junk every year; it's his way of saying that it is unfair that so many young blacks have limited economic opportunity and join the military in disproportionate numbers.

[rbernie]

I'm all for a mandatory two-year hitch to the Reserves or NG for all kids exiting HS; might help curb the rate at which children fail to emotionally mature into adults.

[TallPine]

New York Democrat
And here all this time I've been told that it was Southerners who advocated slavery ... :rolleyes: :p

[Reno]

Each and every one of you supporting mandatory service are enemies of the constitution.

Those of you who have served should recall your oath and deal with yourselves accordingly.

[HankB]

The way to stop this is for the GOP to make a big deal - and I mean a BIG deal - out of it . . . "LOOK HERE, DEMOCRATS WANT TO REINSTATE A DRAFT, EVEN FOR WOMEN, AND SEND YOUR DAUGHTERS TO COMBAT!!!! IF YOU DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

But of course The Stupid Party won't do this - as they lose ground in the next election, they'll go around, patting themselves on the back, about how they followed the high road (not to be confused with www.thehighroad.org!) even as they clear out their desks on Capitol Hill . . .

[Cosmoline]

It also makes you grow up and become independent. I have a couple friends that are nearing, or are 30 yrs old and their parents still give them money. Ridiculous.

I'm all for a mandatory two-year hitch to the Reserves or NG for all kids exiting HS; might help curb the rate at which children fail to emotionally mature into adults.

So forcing young people to spend several years dependent on the teats of Uncle Sam instead of earning money like the rest of us did is a good way to make them independent? That's some really twisted logic there. This is a Euro-style national service plan we're talking about, not some return to the mythical glory days of crewcuts and straight backs. It's socialism at its most wasteful and intrusive.

Besides, even a true draft would be totally pointless. It has no role to play in modern warfare. We don't need an army of serfs forced to fight on pain of prison time.

But I don't know why I'm opposed to it. By rights I should jump at the chance to get a nice civil service job with full benes for two years. That way YOU GUYS can pay the $3,000 dental work I need to get done and the knee surgery.

[rbernie]

Each and every one of you supporting mandatory service are enemies of the constitution.I respectfully disagree, as has the SCOTUS in Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). I will admit that Arver v. United States and every subsequent legal decision on the matter has NOT clearly established whether mandatory service constitutes 'slavery' as outlined by the Thirteenth Amendment. I obviously don't believe that it does, or I would not have taken the position that I did.

Those of you who have served should recall your oath and deal with yourselves accordingly.I sleep fine at night, thankyouverymuch. :rolleyes:

[rbernie]

So forcing young people to spend several years dependent on the teats of Uncle Sam instead of earning money like the rest of us did is a good way to make them independent? That's some really twisted logic there. This is a Euro-style national service plan we're talking about, not some return to the mythical glory days of crewcuts and straight backs. It's socialism at its most wasteful and intrusive. You've taken my comments pretty far from their origins. I didn't suggest Active Duty conscription - I suggested a mandatory Reserve duty committment specifically to create a sense of community via required service to the community.

[Al Norris]

Each and every one of you supporting mandatory service are enemies of the constitution.
May I remind you of...

Art. I sec. 8 clauses 15 and 16:
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;

The draft, in whatever form, is completely constitutional. The other part of this bill, non-military service, is what is unconstitutional.

[DKSuddeth]

Rangel, if ever there was a bigger communist elected to public office, I have no idea who it would be.

[Cosmoline]

You've taken my comments pretty far from their origins. I didn't suggest Active Duty conscription - I suggested a mandatory Reserve duty committment specifically to create a sense of community via required service to the community.

The federal gob'ment ain't "the community." And taxpayers will still need to pick up the tab for all this, including medical costs for any injuries, training costs and equipment. Multiply that by the millions of people we're talking about and you have a bill running into the trillions of dollars. Besides, what happens when the reserve unit gets called up? Then the mandatory service becomes a back door draft.

Whatever obligations we might owe the feds, we pay in taxes. We owe the federal government nothing more.

[Waitone]

Rangel's been baying at that streetlight for a few decades now. Old news.

[Devonai]

Waitone, I was going to say "banging the same old drum," but your phrase works just as well.

Does Charlie Rangel remind anyone else of Tom Dubois from The Boondocks?

[JohnBT]

"Rangel" <= snicker

"I have a couple friends that are nearing, or are 30 yrs old and their parents still give them money."

I drove 100 miles to see my parents yesterday and my 84-year-old father and I did our usual tour of the neighorhood gun store. I nearly wrote a check for a $3200 shotgun, but decided to shop a little more. The one I really want is exactly twice that much.
Before I drove home they gave me $25 for gas. Does that make me a bad person? :) (edited to add: Yes, they can afford it.)

John

[Cosmoline]

More to the point--national service or the lack thereof has NOTHING to do with whether or not kids will end up rich or poor later in life. Folks have a very bizarre notion that somehow being forced to work at federal expense is good for the human soul or a passage to glorious manhood.

[Kim]

DK ----try Conyers and Sanders. And their are many more.

[rbernie]

The federal gob'ment ain't "the community." Last I checked, the NG was still titularly a state entity, with weekend drills conducted in the local community. I consider the NG or Reserve components to very much be a community affair, since you live and work in the community in which you drill. More to the point at hand, one of the things that armed service teaches is that 'community' is what you make of your environment and the people around you, wherever you are and whatever you do.

And taxpayers will still need to pick up the tab for all this, including medical costs for any injuries, training costs and equipment. Multiply that by the millions of people we're talking about and you have a bill running into the trillions of dollars. Certainly, given enough time, the tab will run into the trillions. The same could be said for many other .gov programs, and none of those alternatives offer the ability to train young men and women in rudimentary armed defense. More to the point, I believe that there would be significant collatoral savings in other entitlement programs under such a mandatory service program.

Besides, what happens when the reserve unit gets called up? Then the mandatory service becomes a back door draft.Then fix the root cause - how the units get called up and what jobs they're assigned.

Whatever obligations we might owe the feds, we pay in taxes. We owe the federal government nothing more.Oh, I get it. You're willing to pay for the benefits of the community but you're not willing to get your hands dirty actually being a part of the community. That emotional distance must be pretty hard to live with sometimes.

Folks have a very bizarre notion that somehow being forced to work at federal expense is good for the human soul or a passage to glorious manhood.Individual sacrifice for the good of the whole *can* be good for the human soul on occasion. I'm sincerely sorry that you missed out on that part of growing up.

[Cosmoline]

The bill in question is in CONGRESS, not in a state legislature. The selective service system is a FEDERAL system. If you're talking about a state controlled system to build a sort of local guard that can never be federalized, then that's something totally different.

I believe that there would be significant collatoral savings in other entitlement programs under such a mandatory service program

Where's the proof of this? It certainly doesn't have logic on its side. Forcing people to serve on ditch digging crews like convicts isn't going to make them less likely to end up on welfare. Moreover, the program itself would cost far more than welfare ever has.

Oh, I get it. You're willing to pay for the benefits of the community but you're not willing to get your hands dirty actually being a part of the community. That emotional distance must be pretty hard to live with sometimes.

You continue to confuse the COMMUNITY with the STATE. If you are forced to serve in a guard unit, you are serving the STATE, whether it's federal or local. "The Community" doesn't give you your orders or put you in prison if you fail to comply. THE STATE does these things.

I have no problem "getting my hands dirty," but a plan to enforce mandatory service in order to keep people off welfare is frankly as unamerican as you can get. There's a reason you'll find such programs in the socialist nations of Europe. They want their people to learn early that the STATE rules their lives. Far from freeing people from dependence on the state, such systems ensure they will look to the state for all their needs as they grow older.

Individual sacrifice for the good of the whole *can* be good for the human soul on occasion. I'm sincerely sorry that you missed out on that part of growing up.

So unless I support mandatory service for the good of the state, I'm missing out on a fundamental part of "growing up." I'm sorry, but I don't consider forced participation in mandatory service part of my growth as a human being. To advocate for a draft when the nation is facing a two front world war against two superpowers and has only a tiny standing army is one thing, but to advocate for universal service to "help kids grow up" strikes me as something one of Stalin's minions would have come up with.

[rbernie]

We're clearly not going to agree on anything here, but I can't let a few comments slide by without response.

If you're talking about a state controlled system to build a sort of local guard that can never be federalized, then that's something totally different. I'm actually on this wavelength, but I'd be curious as to why it's OK in your mind to have (to use your terms) ditch digging conscripts under state control but not Federal.... That strikes as a very ambiguous perspective.

Forcing people to serve on ditch digging crews like convicts isn't going to make them less likely to end up on welfare. Moreover, the program itself would cost far more than welfare ever has. Nobody suggested such a thing. What I suggested (specifically to counter your argument that a mandatory Reserve commitment was too expensive) was that there would likely be a collatoral benefit in the reduction in payments of other entitlements. Never was that suggested to be the goal - merely a possible (and IMO likely) outcome.

You're being disengenuous in comparing a mandatory NG/Reserve committment to ditch digging brigades of convicts.

You continue to confuse the COMMUNITY with the STATE. If you are forced to serve in a guard unit, you are serving the STATE, whether it's federal or local. "The Community" doesn't give you your orders or put you in prison if you fail to comply. THE STATE does these things. I don't confuse them at all. I'm just willing to admit that one is an inevitable outgrowth of the other, and that separating them as entities is an arbitrary and intellectually stunted approach.

I have no problem "getting my hands dirty," but a plan to enforce mandatory service in order to keep people off welfare is frankly as unamerican as you can get. There again with the 'welfare' angle. This has nothing to do with welfare. It has everything to do with being expected to put some skin in the game for the community/city/state/nation in which you live.

It also has quite a bit to do with teaching our youth some basic skills that they no longer gain through the normal course of their lives; how to move, communicate, and act as a unit through a disorderly and chaotic environment that may not be man-made, and to do so in a manner that allows them to participate in the defense of the community.

Far from freeing people from dependence on the state, such systems ensure they will look to the state for all their needs as they grow older. Wow - all this from two years of compulsory RESERVE duty. That's quite a leap.

to advocate for universal service to "help kids grow up" strikes me as something one of Stalin's minions would have come up with.Is this some orthoganal outgrowth of Godwin's Law, whereby any admitted form of collective or community conciousness is somehow defined as Stalin-esque?

[Byron Quick]

I didn't believe in a draft when we had a draft. I joined the Army Reserve a year after the draft ended...not to avoid a draft. I had no desire then to trust my flanks or rear to a troop who didn't want to be there and who was nursing a conscript syndrome.

The Russians have a painting that outlines the morality of the draft perfectly. Three people in a sleigh being chased by wolves. Two of them have drafted the third to be wolf bait, lightening the sleigh's load, increasing its speed, and delaying the wolves. I'm sure the majority of two will solemnly hold vigils to commemorate the heroic 'self' sacrifice their compatriot displayed.

It was a sacrife, all right. Nothing 'self' about it, though.

[Cosmoline]

Nobody suggested such a thing. What I suggested (specifically to counter your argument that a mandatory Reserve commitment was too expensive) was that there would likely be a collatoral benefit in the reduction in payments of other entitlements. Never was that suggested to be the goal - merely a possible (and IMO likely) outcome.


How is this likely or even possible. You'll be paying them out of government coffers for their service, and the two year period will keep them from two years of earning real money and putting it into the entitlement system. Why do you think two years of mandatory guard service is going to make people less likely to turn to the government for entitlements later on? And if this isn't what you think, how is it the program would reduce the payments of other entitlements?

You're being disengenuous in comparing a mandatory NG/Reserve committment to ditch digging brigades of convicts.

But if you increase the guard from a few hundred thousand to twenty or thirty million, what else are they going to do? They'll either be going through pointless drills or they'll be put to work cleaning the roadsides and digging ditches.

I don't confuse them at all. I'm just willing to admit that one is an inevitable outgrowth of the other, and that separating them as entities is an arbitrary and intellectually stunted approach.

My community is composed of the people around me. My neighbors and friends. Governments are composed of the elected representatives, but the only ones with any tie to MY COMMUNITY are local and state governments, and those links get weaker as you go higher up the chain. The state government represents my community a little less, since it represents many communities in the state at once. The federal government barely represents me or my community at all. It's distant and knows almost nothing about life here.

This is why I have less of a problem with the notion of a state or local government calling up crews of locals to help deal with emergencies than with a NATIONAL SERVICE LAW which by definition is going to have to come from the Federales.

[DWARREN123]

Just like the draft, some would slide by.
Just my opinion.

[xd9fan]

rangel is a joke. He put this same bill up for a vote last year and voted against his own bill. THAT should tell you something. He is just grand standing (and racist).

the draft is slavery.....in a free society persuasion is the digified tool/choice versus Force.



www.theadvocates.org/library/pers-vs-force.html

[cropcirclewalker]

Universal mandatory military service is not slavery. It is paying a price for citizenship.

But,.........the empire is in decline. Mandatory military service is done for.

The founders had the right idea, namely all able bodied males being in the militia. Musters, training and like that. Elect their own officers and like that.

Now since we have so much effluence and complacency, the rich and/or lazy and/or cowardly will figger a way to weasel out of their service.

Like I said, the empire is in decline. It was good while it lasted. :(

[geekWithA.45]

There is a very distinct difference between our civic militia duty, and mandatory conscription into a national standing army.

One is moral and righteous, the other is questionable, subject to potential degeneration into evil, circumstances depending.

This difference has been plastered over, sanded and given a nice glossy coat of paint by the events of the last 120 years.

[xd9fan]

The founders had the right idea, namely all able bodied males being in the militia. Musters, training and like that. Elect their own officers and like that.

Now since we have so much effluence and complacency, the rich and/or lazy and/or cowardly will figger a way to weasel out of their service.

Like I said, the empire is in decline. It was good while it lasted.


The way I see it is the reason the draft is talked about is because the empires's army is low on numbers.

I too would love original Militia system (like the swiss....a real machine gun and ammo in every home...etc..) but this so called "free" nation does not believe in that either.

+1 geekwitha45




Universal mandatory military service is not slavery. It is paying a price for citizenship.

Could not disagree with you more!! Joining "the State" is NOT what the FF thought of the "price for citizenship" OR for protecting Liberty. This statement sounds fascist.

[wingman]

the draft is slavery.....in a free society persuasion is the digified tool/choice versus Force

I always find this humorous when someone compares a draft to slavery,
I'm sure true slaves of the past would be willing to show you the difference.


Anyone living in this country should be required to serve two years for the
privilege of living here. If not don't let the door hit you as you exit south
or north of he border.;)

[xd9fan]

whatever...

its against ones free will. thats the point.

[Cosmoline]

Anyone living in this country should be required to serve two years for the
privilege of living here. If not don't let the door hit you as you exit south
or north of he border

These sorts of statements are classic Archie Bunker armchair quips, typically made by old men who think a few years of what they went through in the military would straighten out all the rotten kids and fix what ails the nation. But the devil is in the details. You cannot institute universal mandatory service without changing the military forever. It's NOT the same thing as instituting a draft at time of total war. It's actually much closer to the European socialist system of mandatory service. And I don't know any sane person who thinks those programs have been good for the military forces of Europe. All it does is waste the time of the professionals babysitting millions of young people who would rather be making money and who have neither the will nor the ability to contribute in any useful way to any military effort. The exception might be the IDF, but in that case you have a nation which has been in an almost continuous state of war for fifty years, so the national service obligations function as a true wartime draft.

The bottom line is--the military is for FIGHTING WARS. It should never be turned into a social services program for "straightening kids out." That's what prison is for.

[cropcirclewalker]

Could not disagree with you more!! Joining "the State" is NOT what the FF thought of the "price for citizenship" OR for protecting Liberty. This statement sounds fascist. Excellent satire.

The founders created the militia and they did not ask for you to voluntarily sign up. If you were able bodied, you were in the militia. Simple as that. No signing up required.

.gov learned in the Viet Nam incursion that an unpopular war would not be supported by the people. The Kansas Militia refused to enter Missouri in 1861 to help the Union at the battle of the Hemp Bales (Lexington, MO, back when Hemp was still legal :p ).

A Militia like unto that which the founders intended would never be over killing goat herders in a place far, far away.

Fascist? That's what we got now.

[slide]

Universal national service is a forced servitude while being in the militia isn't. The difference is that you are in the militia and can live a civilian life up until there is an emergency need.

I agree with the post who said this is grumpy old man Archie Bunker talk. The idea of having to DEAL with several million slackers is staggering. It'd ruin the military and anything else it was used for such as road building. Do YOU want to ride your truck across a bridge made by several thousand dope addled slackers?

[Ziryo]

Out of curosity, how would the logistics of such an endeavor work?

I'm just going to pick a number...say...10,000 students graduate high school a year. How is distribution and training going to work? I'm having trouble imagining the military coping with a sudden influx. Boot camp takes ermm...8 to 13 weeks I believe, depending on the service branch. Advanced training takes...well...it's all over the place.

There's also the costs, financial and otherwise that the military has to handle. Last time I checked military instructors, food, buildings, and other necessities don't just come out of the air.

So now you have these soldiers, sailors, and airmen that probably didn't want to join the military forced into it for two years. What are you going to do with them? Pay them a pittance and put them to work on civil "engineering" projects like in South Korea? What will you do with those unable to adapt to military life?

I'd be very resentful if I was forced into the military on my 18th birthday for two years (especially since I was 18 my entire senior year of high school.)

The idea of people supporting an idea like this just...aggrevates me. Just for the record I am joining the military.

[cropcirclewalker]

Even though Mr. Rangle is probably screwed up and one of those evil democrats to boot, he is getting purty close to hitting on something. Hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Although a well regulated clock set to the correct time has the possibility of being right all the time, if it is even fast or slow, it is right less times than a stopped clock. Fer instance, if a clock that is fast or slow by 1 second per day was correct back on July 4, 1776, wound regularly and such, it would not be correct again until November 9, 1894 (based on 43,200 days 118.37 years) and I could be off by a few days (allowing for leaps etc. :p ).)

This national service thing that Rangel dreampt up is probably as screwed up as he is but mandatory military service is not.

The point is.......our rulers are less likely to get us into entangling adventures if it is their offspring feeding the cannons.

How do they do it in Isreal or Switzerland?

[Diomed]

What I "owe" the "State" is tax revenue. I pay my taxes, my responsibility to the state is discharged.

The only exception is in times of emergency - the draft being another form of the militia. A peacetime draft is an unwarranted intrusion into the private life of the citizenry.

Are we at peace now? Hell if I know. But that's a different argument.

[slide]

1. If there were a draft, it'd be more likely we'd have more wars because of all the extra soldiers hanging about doing nothing.

2. The children of powerful people would not be used as cannon fodder. It'd be like Gore's kid in Vietnam having a job which was perfectly safe, but he was there. Or Bush in the National Guard or, well, I can go on.

Yes, some influential people like MacArthur's kid did serve in a hazard situation (his was killed, IIRC) but that's an extreme rarity and one the rich volunteer for. Most rich kids are in no jeopardy today nor would be tomorrow.

[Pilgrim]

I personally prefer the Robert Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" model. If you want to vote, you have to have served the state.

Pilgrim

[Cosmoline]

I personally prefer the Robert Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" model. If you want to vote, you have to have served the state.

That's no different than what the fascists and communists have done, though. They always make a point of limiting the voting rights to PARTY MEMBERS. Only those who have been approved and trained by the state can control the state. Voting is not a right, but a mere privilege in such a place. We've all seen where these notions lead, and it isn't pretty. Following Heinlein's ideas on voting rights makes every bit as much sense as following Hubbard's ideas on religion.

I think one of the wisest things our founders did was keep the standing army small and underfunded. We kept true to these notions until after WWII. Now we seem to be slipping further and further down the European path of martial imperialism. Even to the point of suggesting everyone should be forced to serve in the military or in prison. It's not good, not good at all. Honoring those who gave their lives should include a realization that there is nothing good in war, and much danger in trying to constantly prepare for it. We ought to be a nation of CIVILIAN riflemen, not some authoritarian Heinleinesque nation where the warriors rule the sheep.

[xd9fan]

We ought to be a nation of CIVILIAN riflemen, not some authoritarian Heinleinesque nation where the warriors rule the sheep.

I agree and a draft wont get us there.....