thefitzvh
Member
I dont have to, someone already did. Scroll up
Should women be required to register for the draft?
- Thread starter RustyHammer
- Start date
- Status
Moparmike
Member
While I share your opinion, that particular America that we know and love wont be around much longer.
I say this with relavance to another bumper sticker slogan(like the one quoted), which said something about "changing America" that was on all the uber-liberal's bumpers. They have changed and are still changing America, and we have seemingly swapped positions with the radical left; we are now the radical right. All because we have patriotism and common sense.
Sad world we live in.
Redlg155
Member
I agree with those who say that women should be included in a draft.
I also think that the there should be a level playing field in our current U.S. Military. Perhaps things have changed (I doubt it) but females in the Army did not have to meet anywhere near the male standard on the physical fitness test. If they want to serve in a voluntary army..then meet the same standards as men.
Good Shooting
Red
I also think that the there should be a level playing field in our current U.S. Military. Perhaps things have changed (I doubt it) but females in the Army did not have to meet anywhere near the male standard on the physical fitness test. If they want to serve in a voluntary army..then meet the same standards as men.
Good Shooting
Red
Tamara
Senior Member
thefitzvh,
Which part of the "same (C)onstitution that guarantees RKBA" covers involuntary conscription, and why was involuntary conscription not used in this country until long after the Framers were all dead?
That's not part of the Constitution.
Which part of the "same (C)onstitution that guarantees RKBA" covers involuntary conscription, and why was involuntary conscription not used in this country until long after the Framers were all dead?
thefitzvh
Member
The constitution, provides this:
Article I Section 8 Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
militia, was defined (by some of the framers, i might add) as every eligible male as stated in the militia act..
Therefore, involuntary service.
Where was that logic hard to follow?
in the war of 1812, people were forced to fight, and in nearly every major war since.
Article I Section 8 Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
militia, was defined (by some of the framers, i might add) as every eligible male as stated in the militia act..
Therefore, involuntary service.
Where was that logic hard to follow?
in the war of 1812, people were forced to fight, and in nearly every major war since.
Moparmike
Member
thefitzvh, are you referring to my post? That is the Militia Act of 1792, not the Constitution. Too bad no one uses that reference when they discuss the militia, but unfortunately for the "cause", it says "all white men" instead of "all men". But like I said, it was the late 1700's. :shrug:
thefitzvh
Member
im referring to the part before about calling up the militia.
My point being is that militia wasn't defined till later, but everyone knew what it meant. If you were a citizen, you were responsible for the defense of the nation.
Im also staring at my copies of both documents now. I'm a bit of a constitution nut.
James
My point being is that militia wasn't defined till later, but everyone knew what it meant. If you were a citizen, you were responsible for the defense of the nation.
Im also staring at my copies of both documents now. I'm a bit of a constitution nut.
James
Al Norris
Member
Why is it that when I made a direct quote from the Constitution of the Untited States, most of the rest of you act like it doesn't exist?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. Grants the legislature the power to call up the militia. That folks is what we now call the draft. The Militia Act of 1792 (as amended) defines the Militia and gives the President (as the chief executive) a limited ability to call up the Militia. A proper (according to many) delegation of legislative power.
The Selective Service Act allows for registration of all able bodied males between a certain age for the express purpose of a call up.
As far as just these two Acts go, we are still within Constitutional bounds. What is so blazin hard to understand about this? Now iffen y'all don't like this setup, then lobby for an amendment.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. Grants the legislature the power to call up the militia. That folks is what we now call the draft. The Militia Act of 1792 (as amended) defines the Militia and gives the President (as the chief executive) a limited ability to call up the Militia. A proper (according to many) delegation of legislative power.
The Selective Service Act allows for registration of all able bodied males between a certain age for the express purpose of a call up.
As far as just these two Acts go, we are still within Constitutional bounds. What is so blazin hard to understand about this? Now iffen y'all don't like this setup, then lobby for an amendment.
Pendragon
Member
"Calling up the Militia" <> Conscription.
You can call up the militia all you want - show me where it says they have to answer the call. It does not say "compel, conscript, force, enslave" or any other "force" words.
Says whom? Who has forgotten?
If I recall, a lot of young people enlisted after 9/11. Did they forget?
Do we have such a shortage of people that the country is in danger of invasion? Or perhaps merely inconvenience or embarassment.
Do you not grasp the notion that it is immoral to force one man, literally at the point of a gun, to go fight and die so that another man, older, richer, more educated, can stay home and enjoy his peace and prosperity?
That is slavery - its worse than slavery because a slave is not generally placed in harms way as a matter of course.
Having an all volunteer military tells the world "we are free, we love our freedom enough to defend it - each man is here defending freedom because he loves it more than life."
Conscription is incredibly pragmatic - as are most forms of government coercion.
So, as the old saw goes, what if they held a war and nobody came?
What if, in the late 1960s, the President said - there is a grave threat to democracy. We need men to sign up and go fight in rice paddys. There will be mines, there will be torture if you are captured. We will tie your hands and make you fight in ways pleasing to politicians. Please, join now.
Even if some people went, after enough media coverage, people would get the message and the supply of volunteers would dry up.
Don't you see that the lives of free men are precious? If they can take them for the wanting, where is the incentive to place America over ambition or convenience? They can literally throw away the lives of our boys like they did in Viet Nam without any worry that it will make it harder to get volunteers in the future.
An all volunteer military is a check on our freedom, the abuse of power and our patriotism. The day we do not have enough people to defend the country is the day America has died. If an enemy masses to take us, they will not be taking America, only the corpse of a once great nation.
You can call up the militia all you want - show me where it says they have to answer the call. It does not say "compel, conscript, force, enslave" or any other "force" words.
Says whom? Who has forgotten?
If I recall, a lot of young people enlisted after 9/11. Did they forget?
Do we have such a shortage of people that the country is in danger of invasion? Or perhaps merely inconvenience or embarassment.
Do you not grasp the notion that it is immoral to force one man, literally at the point of a gun, to go fight and die so that another man, older, richer, more educated, can stay home and enjoy his peace and prosperity?
That is slavery - its worse than slavery because a slave is not generally placed in harms way as a matter of course.
Having an all volunteer military tells the world "we are free, we love our freedom enough to defend it - each man is here defending freedom because he loves it more than life."
Conscription is incredibly pragmatic - as are most forms of government coercion.
So, as the old saw goes, what if they held a war and nobody came?
What if, in the late 1960s, the President said - there is a grave threat to democracy. We need men to sign up and go fight in rice paddys. There will be mines, there will be torture if you are captured. We will tie your hands and make you fight in ways pleasing to politicians. Please, join now.
Even if some people went, after enough media coverage, people would get the message and the supply of volunteers would dry up.
Don't you see that the lives of free men are precious? If they can take them for the wanting, where is the incentive to place America over ambition or convenience? They can literally throw away the lives of our boys like they did in Viet Nam without any worry that it will make it harder to get volunteers in the future.
An all volunteer military is a check on our freedom, the abuse of power and our patriotism. The day we do not have enough people to defend the country is the day America has died. If an enemy masses to take us, they will not be taking America, only the corpse of a once great nation.
MicroBalrog
member
Should women be drafted?
Why not?
Why not?
Al Norris
Member
Ahhhh Pendragon! I see you don't like the implications of unlimited power of the President! This is good.
You see, the Constitutional power of the legislature to call up the militia, The Militia Act of 1792 (as ammended) and the Selective Service Act of 1917 are fully reconcilable with voluntary service.
Where it begins to get dicey is in the amendments to the Selective Service Act, which made mincemeat of the "voluntary" provisions of the origianl Act. Add into this mix, the various War Powers given to the Executive and we steer into Constitutionally muddy waters. Which is why I didn't mention any of this until now.
It appears on the surface that many of you regard the manner and form of the Iraq War to be a perfectly legal exercise of Executive power. Yet you balk at the suggestion that involuntary servitude re the Selective Service Act of 1917, as ammended, to be akin to slavery. Since the two parts are entirely connected, that is part and parcel of the whole cloth, you simply can't have it both ways.
It was a point I and some few others were trying to make last January and February, but were severely shouted down by the majority on this board. Now as we look at another aspect of the War Powers of the Executive, you find it loathsome.
Why is that, specifically? Why is the one a lawfull exercise of presidential perogitive and the other not?
You see, the Constitutional power of the legislature to call up the militia, The Militia Act of 1792 (as ammended) and the Selective Service Act of 1917 are fully reconcilable with voluntary service.
Where it begins to get dicey is in the amendments to the Selective Service Act, which made mincemeat of the "voluntary" provisions of the origianl Act. Add into this mix, the various War Powers given to the Executive and we steer into Constitutionally muddy waters. Which is why I didn't mention any of this until now.
It appears on the surface that many of you regard the manner and form of the Iraq War to be a perfectly legal exercise of Executive power. Yet you balk at the suggestion that involuntary servitude re the Selective Service Act of 1917, as ammended, to be akin to slavery. Since the two parts are entirely connected, that is part and parcel of the whole cloth, you simply can't have it both ways.
It was a point I and some few others were trying to make last January and February, but were severely shouted down by the majority on this board. Now as we look at another aspect of the War Powers of the Executive, you find it loathsome.
Why is that, specifically? Why is the one a lawfull exercise of presidential perogitive and the other not?
RustyHammer
Member
MicroBalrog,
Love it and the I.D.F.!
/Rusty
Love it and the I.D.F.!
/Rusty
Balog
Member
Those are some amazingly attractive young ladies. Especially the short-haired blond to the bottom right.
Oh, and if men are drafted, women should be as well. But I don't think they should see combat. And of course whether or not any draft is acceptable is a seperate question.
Oh, and if men are drafted, women should be as well. But I don't think they should see combat. And of course whether or not any draft is acceptable is a seperate question.
Wakal
Member
I'm not a big fan of the draft, but I am a fan of racial and sexual equality.
Yes to the original question, yes women should be forced to register for the draft as long as men are likewise forced to register.
Also yes to the (unasked but discussed in passing) question if women should be allowed to serve in combat. That said...ONLY if they can pass the exact same physical standards required of men for that job. I've been in the service for 14 years now, and I've been annoyed for 14 years that females are allowed to do my job despite only having to meet half to two-thirds of the same standards I do.
That is just plain wrong. One set of standards across the board is quite enough for Mamma Wakal's little boy, damn it.
Just as wrong as any other discrimination like "affirmative" action, IMO.
Alex
Yes to the original question, yes women should be forced to register for the draft as long as men are likewise forced to register.
Also yes to the (unasked but discussed in passing) question if women should be allowed to serve in combat. That said...ONLY if they can pass the exact same physical standards required of men for that job. I've been in the service for 14 years now, and I've been annoyed for 14 years that females are allowed to do my job despite only having to meet half to two-thirds of the same standards I do.
That is just plain wrong. One set of standards across the board is quite enough for Mamma Wakal's little boy, damn it.
Just as wrong as any other discrimination like "affirmative" action, IMO.
Alex
JJohnston015
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2003
- Messages
- 466
In that case, Al, given the definition of "militia" as applied to the Second Amendment, that clause only gives gov't the power to call up the National Guard.
outdoorman63
Member
my opinion
equality means equality...
equality means equality...
Holly76201
Member
1st: Microbalog, LOVE the pic, warms the cockles of my heart.
2nd: as to the original question, Yes, I think women AND men should have to register for the draft. I've been a feminist for a little over 30 years now and I've always believed that equal rights come with equal responsibilities.
3rd: As the Mother of a daughter and a son, I don't WANT to see either of them called up, but I like to think they both would served their country if called. I also think my daughter would be fiercer {used to beat the bejabbers out of her brother on a regular basis, til he out grew her}and a better shot. She plays roller hockey and enjoys mixin it up with the guys {which is a challenge since she's 5'6" and about 150} and is Vicious with that stick.
2nd: as to the original question, Yes, I think women AND men should have to register for the draft. I've been a feminist for a little over 30 years now and I've always believed that equal rights come with equal responsibilities.
3rd: As the Mother of a daughter and a son, I don't WANT to see either of them called up, but I like to think they both would served their country if called. I also think my daughter would be fiercer {used to beat the bejabbers out of her brother on a regular basis, til he out grew her}and a better shot. She plays roller hockey and enjoys mixin it up with the guys {which is a challenge since she's 5'6" and about 150} and is Vicious with that stick.
Al Norris
Member
BZZZZZZ! Wrong Answer! Time for a little lesson again, I see.
Just so you know, it is the unorganized militia that the Selective Service Act addresses.
USAFA
Member
Would I be correct in a guess that the pic posted above is from the Israli (sp?) military? Please let me know, I've been trying to decide where to shop for a new girlfriend.
As to the serious question: Fair is fair and you can't complain about the system if you aren't paying your dues. Women should register for the draft, and I can think of no good reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat positions if they can meet standards. Heck, the three scariest individuals I've met in my life were all female, I wouldn't want to run into a single one of them in a dark alley.
As to the serious question: Fair is fair and you can't complain about the system if you aren't paying your dues. Women should register for the draft, and I can think of no good reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat positions if they can meet standards. Heck, the three scariest individuals I've met in my life were all female, I wouldn't want to run into a single one of them in a dark alley.
USAFA
Member
Why not in combat jobs, this one has always mystified me?
thefitzvh
Member
Well, as much as I'd like women to share a COMPLETELY equal load, the simple fact is that most (I SAID MOST! don' wanna get the feminists mad at me( women can't do physically the things that a man can do. Most cannot put a rucksack with 100 lbs of gear on and move 100 miles.
James
James
- Status