The Draft?

[Inkidu]

So I was sitting in Business Law this morning and our professor was going over Con (Constitutional) law. (Keep in mind this is the U.S. Constitution)

Now he posed this question with all the things that have been amended in the U.S. constitution wouldn't an all-male draft into the military be unconstitutional? I think so from a legal standpoint.

[RubySlippers]

feminism.eserver.org/workplace/professions/women-in-the-military.txt

Looking at this information and its seems accurate women can do ALOT of military position is some branches all of them and in others a bit over half so I would say in our current military a Draft could include and should include women. I know some will say women shouldn't fight as a Libertarian and a woman I find that offensive like we can't defend this nation. It should be easy to channel women into branches where they have zero problems doing duties and favor men for ones like the Army. As for the problems of pregnancy military persons in service have few rights there make them take a implanted form of birth control or a shot during their service to avoid that. Not that I approve of forced service ideally the US would only defend the nation property and real vital interests so the needs should be not needed but with these warmongers and interventionists we get into office if we have one, everyone should serve. Even I could do a desk job allowing an able bodied man or woman to serve in a more active role, with my service done inside the country.

[Trieste]

Oooh, this subject makes me want to stomp my feet. Whenever I see someone agitating for women to be able to be just as draftable as men and required to register with the selective service, I want to jump up and down and scream, "No! Wait! You're going the wrong way!"

Nobody should be draftable. Not women, and not men either.

[Sherona]

what got me was women being forced to take Birth Control. That is just as bad as outlawing Birth Control, or Outlawing ALL abortions....

[RubySlippers]

I ,as a Libertarian, agree with you 100% but IF they are going to force people to serve then under our Constitution and the needs of the military by what the genders can do allow no excuses. In other wars such as WWII men did most of the duties so women when they served filled roles that were generally not combat related. Its different now.

And soldiers can be forced to take vaccinations and shots especially in a general war setting which would have to be in place for a Draft to be even excusable, birth control likely implants could be coerced. Its no different than shots for various illness if your being sent to serve in an area with tropical diseases.

[Trieste]

I have been told by several ex-mil types that the US Government technically owns you when you sign into service. Usually they do not exercise this right but the most common example I have heard of is when guys go on a drinking binge and put themselves in the hospital. That merits a charge of intentional damage to government property/resources.

This is second-hand, but I've heard it from several places, and when I checked it for urban legend-ness, it came up neg.

In that light, they already can force you to take shots and whatnot. They technically can experiment on you, I believe. It's very scary. But it puts the issue of "My body, my choice" out the window.

After that, it's really the most wise course, if you think about it.

[RubySlippers]

Well they would likely argue in courts that due to the state of active major war and the women being drafted its necessary to coerce the use of long term birth control by women, and men if they had an option there. I'm a military brat my uncle was a JAG lawyer so I called him and he said it would be an interesting case but this is likely the case they would make. If men decided to challenge the draft law as unconstitutional he said it would likely succeed and force the draft of women but the military would decide where to send them based on what duties are needed. So they would be more channeled into the branches where they may serve in any position more than the others to meet "necessary military areas of major needs".

[Sherona]

While going on Birth control is the most wise choice, if tehy are going to FORCE me to join or serve in teh army then they by damned will not take away any reproductive rights. Now I don't want any more children so yeah free BC that my husband can't say no to? GREAT but thats not going to help those women who aer wanting children, trying to with their husband andthen be forced to join teh army, and the forced to throw everythng off for BC (becase the hormones stay in t he body after discontinuation and reduces pregnancy chances for a while after removal.)

Draft= NO

Forced reproductive policy= NO.

Thats just my thoughts about it.

[RubySlippers]

Well then you will get a choice of prison or going to Canada or Mexico.

When we are in a general war the courts will rarely side against the needs of the country during such a time, so just hope we don't invade Iran that happens we may all get into this for real.

[Sherona]

naw ever since the draft was abolished there have been scare tactics and rumors that the government is going to bring back the draft. It hasn't happened yet, and I highly doubt it will happen any time soon. Besides with my medical hsitroy I am unfit to serve so I, myself, won't have anything to fear but you would find me marching in protest.


You act as if this is actually going to happen, do you have sources that state that a re-instatement of the draft and forced reproductive policies are up for a vote in congress?

[Trieste]

No, the draft is not likely to be re-instated anytime soon. The last draft taught us better - soldiers who don't WANT to be fighting don't fight well. They have very low morale. They aren't courageous or willing to stick their necks out. It's like rounding up a prison and asking them to knit doilies for charity. Yeah, okay, whatever there, sparky.

It would be political suicide BUT many people on the very far left (at least, that's how it works around here) have been making it out like it's about to be reinstated, like, tomorrow. Intentional or not, I view it as scaremongering... that energy that's spent worrying about and trying to prevent the draft would be much better spent elsewhere.

[RubySlippers]

No but we are stretched thin its just common sense we bomb Iran this will open up a higher level of violence int he region so its possible they will be forced to do so. As for Congress under war powers if the courts rule the current draft laws unconstitutional and that would be very likely they would have no choice but to force women into the draft that could be under presidential order like when they desegregated the military. And my uncle said with the risk of pregnancy exempting women they would have to enforce birth control just like they do immunizations.

Its going to come down to how much more strain we force the military to bear they are already on the edge now, one more front its going to perhaps be too much.

[Sherona]

Which makes it more logical that the next administration wont be bombing Iran without pulling out somewhere then to put in a poorly thought out policy that would just mean political suicide.

[RubySlippers]

Have you been keeping up with the thought certain military planners think we can just bomb Iran into submission and if Israel decides its in their national interest to do so they will do so, either case might unleash Iran. They could easily reinforce and expand efforts against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as in a full general war backed by a real nation that will not be likely to back down. And we would have legitimized them a Muslim nation attacked first would elicite massive support. Could you envision what they can do send troops into these other nations, unleash terrorism backed by their support or cut off the waterways. You don't think they would do a draft if they needed the troops and warm bodies.

And the draft was successful in WWII so its not like it cannot work, but we have to have troops believe in what they are fighting for.

[Destiny Ascension]

I have been told by several ex-mil types that the US Government technically owns you when you sign into service.

This is off a bit. When you enlist you sign a series of contracts and service papers. These basically say, you are willing to abide by any lawful order given to you by superior officers of your command, or any command you are under. So technically, they do kinda own you, but they also kinda don't, like they can' tell you to do anything thats not a lawful order(Like...ordering you to commit suicide or run out into machine gun fire as a distraction, as that would likely ensure death)

I don't agree with a draft, its not necessary, and honestly, as a former Marine, I wouldn't want some punk kids that DONT wanna be here, fighting along side me with that type of attitude. Its just...kinda distracting when someone complains that they don't wanna be there.

As for women in the military, they SAY non-combat, but in the Iraq war, there are NO non-combat roles. Everyone not Arabic is a target. Cooks, doctors, reporters, EVERYONE. Women have been targeted and killed in duty, I've been targeted, though thankfully not killed. There are no front lines, and really no rules, in Iraq or Afghanistan. So really, regardless of what you do, your likely going to see combat. I was a radio operator, so technically I shouldn't have ever seen combat, but like most service women, I still did anyways.

[Sherona]

Have you been keeping up with the thought certain military planners think we can just bomb Iran into submission and if Israel decides its in their national interest to do so they will do so, either case might unleash Iran. They could easily reinforce and expand efforts against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as in a full general war backed by a real nation that will not be likely to back down. And we would have legitimized them a Muslim nation attacked first would elicite massive support. Could you envision what they can do send troops into these other nations, unleash terrorism backed by their support or cut off the waterways. You don't think they would do a draft if they needed the troops and warm bodies.

And the draft was successful in WWII so its not like it cannot work, but we have to have troops believe in what they are fighting for.

Again scare tactics. Still no proof that they are even contemplating a draft. Number 1. Bombing is done without sending n troops to occupy countries when necessary, it has happened before and will happen again.

Number 2. I could also say that Martians are likely to land and send terrorist cells into Pakistan and Afghanistan but without solid evidence I doubt anyone will be sending troops to mars...good god I hope the next administration will have learned /that/ lesson from our current one.

number 3. Just because the enemy might or might not employ the draft does not mean that US is going to stoop to that level..as Destiny so eloquently put it, no one wants someone who doesn't want to be there to be the one they put their life into their hands.

Number 4. WWII was FAR more widely supported then say Vietnam, Iraq...note that when the wars are very low in support from the homeland (United states here) the amount of draft dodges went sky high...The congressional leaders will realize that there will be no point in putting in a draft when those who DONT dodge, will end up getting them or their platoons killed for lack of will to be there.

Just my opinions, don't really ahve sources to back these up as they are just my views on history. Though I could come up with sources on draft dodgers of Vietname, I could come up wtih sources that state that WWII was far more supported then Vietnam (both actions taken during draft).

[Caehlim]

I agree that no one should be drafted. If, as the political powers that be, the people are not willing to lay down their lives for your country then you have to wonder what you're doing wrong rather than try to force them to fight.

I would gladly sign up to the military if I ever believed my country were under serious military threat, because I like my country and would like to keep it the way it is. I don't sign up now because there is absolutely zero danger to my country and I think serving in the military wouldn't achieve much.

Please note: I am not American. I'm Australian.

[Sherona]

On that note Caehlim, I would serve my military if need be though in the US military (this was true abotu 12 years ago, not sure now) but history of mental illness, such as chronic depression, is enough to keep me out.

[Caehlim]

On that note Caehlim, I would serve my military if need be though in the US military (this was true abotu 12 years ago, not sure now) but history of mental illness, such as chronic depression, is enough to keep me out.

I like to sleep with other men...

[Sherona]

I like to sleep with other men...

Wow, what a coincidence, I like to sleep with men too....which should be a standard reply in the military unfortunately that too would be "You TOLD!! Get out ya homosexual deviant.." *sigh*...

I hate the bs sometimes..I really do.

[Oniya]

I wouldn't pass the physical, myself.  And as far as forced birth control - if they make it mandatory for women, they should make it mandatory for men, too.  (That'll put a wrench in the system ;D)  Not to mention, I know the real code phrase to get out when you're drafted.

"You walk in to the shrink whenever you are, just walk in, say, 'Shrink -- You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant.' -- and walk out."

[Inkidu]

Oooh, this subject makes me want to stomp my feet. Whenever I see someone agitating for women to be able to be just as draftable as men and required to register with the selective service, I want to jump up and down and scream, "No! Wait! You're going the wrong way!"

Nobody should be draftable. Not women, and not men either.

The U.S. government reserves the right to instate the draft. So whether you believe its wrong or right, it's constitutional. So you have a very off topic answer.  :-[

[Inkidu]

what got me was women being forced to take Birth Control. That is just as bad as outlawing Birth Control, or Outlawing ALL abortions....

Stay on topic for the first page at least.  :-\ Abortions while an issue of ethics is not defined black-letter or otherwise in the U.S. Constitution so come, drafting just men, unconstitutional?

[Sherona]

Number 1. it was on topic as it was related to the draft. It was not a tangent on abortion, I just used that as an example of why drafting women and forcing BC on them is wrong...which is again, on topic to constitionality of the draft of only men.


As far as only men, taht was constitutional before the sexual revolution. Now there are admendments that make women equal to men, so no it is now unconstitutional.

[Inkidu]

Number 1. it was on topic as it was related to the draft. It was not a tangent on abortion, I just used that as an example of why drafting women and forcing BC on them is wrong...which is again, on topic to constitionality of the draft of only men.


As far as only men, taht was constitutional before the sexual revolution. Now there are admendments that make women equal to men, so no it is now unconstitutional.

But whether or not women are forced to take birth control in the military when drafted isn't the point. The second part of your answer is.

[Sherona]

ah but you can not just pick and choose what would be a constitutional issue rising from the drafting of women. Honestly, real discussion evolves and never stays on one rigid topic no matter where you go. And if the draft constitutionally raises the question of are women allowed to be drafted or is it just going to be men (even though the draft would never be reinstated by any one NOT wanting to commit political suicide) then the question of "How do we keep women from getting pregnant while they are fighting in the war efforts?" or would it just be easier to draft only men.

By our constitution then no its not legal to draft only men, but I don't know of many women who are going to stand up and say "HEY I want to be drafted, be forced blah blah blah" as long as women aer still allowed to voluntarily sign up for the army. *shrugs*

[Inkidu]

ah but you can not just pick and choose what would be a constitutional issue rising from the drafting of women. Honestly, real discussion evolves and never stays on one rigid topic no matter where you go. And if the draft constitutionally raises the question of are women allowed to be drafted or is it just going to be men (even though the draft would never be reinstated by any one NOT wanting to commit political suicide) then the question of "How do we keep women from getting pregnant while they are fighting in the war efforts?" or would it just be easier to draft only men.

By our constitution then no its not legal to draft only men, but I don't know of many women who are going to stand up and say "HEY I want to be drafted, be forced blah blah blah" as long as women aer still allowed to voluntarily sign up for the army. *shrugs*

Your thinking that this was a discussion. No it was a simple question with very fixed answers. My question doesn't evolve. It stays exactly how I want it to stay.

EDIT: If my Business Law professor shot his students down for getting off topic I can too. And he shot us down for this same thing.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I think the draft is wrong. . .in it's current state it is unconstitutional.  My opinion is, Nobody should be drafted Period.  Since there is a draft should women be drafted?  Though we like to think so we are NOT just as capable as men at everything.  Men are made differently and brought up differently. . .they ARE different.  If there was an all gender draft then women should be drafted into different positions than men.  My two cents. 

My dad served in the army of his own free will.  He told me things that bother me. 

[Inkidu]

I think the draft is wrong. . .in it's current state it is unconstitutional.  My opinion is, Nobody should be drafted Period.  Since there is a draft should women be drafted?  Though we like to think so we are NOT just as capable as men at everything.  Men are made differently and brought up differently. . .they ARE different.  If there was an all gender draft then women should be drafted into different positions than men.  My two cents. 

My dad served in the army of his own free will.  He told me things that bother me. 

How is the draft unconstitutional? Pray tell.

[ShrowdedPoet]

How is the draft unconstitutional? Pray tell.

It is unconstitutional because in it's current state it only drafts men where women are not equal to men it should draft all gender.

[Sherona]

Just anote, if your talking of the united states, there is no current draft...the old draft before it was abolished was unconstitutional under today's constitution,

[ShrowdedPoet]

Just anote, if your talking of the united states, there is no current draft...the old draft before it was abolished was unconstitutional under today's constitution,

AHA!!!  Thank you for correcting my mistake.  That one was unconstitutional!!!

[Inkidu]

Exactly! ;D

[Sherona]

*smiles* It was only a very small mistake, and probably just a mis-phrasing then any real mistake, as I know you didn't think they were still drafting. But it was a pretty important to the convo phrasing issue so I figured it was worth mentioning.


On that note, I agree old draft is unconstitutional, but re-writing to add women to make it constitutional would oepn a whole new bag of worms...another reason I figure we are safe from the rumors of drafts.

[ZK]

The only time I think something as extreme as the draft to be reinstated would be in case the fact, we were actually openly invaded on American soil. That would cause for an immediate call to arms. As for women being drafted, if something that drastic happened, I see no reason not to have it if it in fact boiled down to -that-, but that's an extreme case. For external wars, no. It should be all voluntarily force only... but I think I simply suggested everyone to be deputized when it breaks down at the core.

[Sherona]

I agree ZK. If american soil was under attack, literally and invasion was occuring then yes..but I think -would liek to hope- that most people would pick up arms to defend their homes from a physical threat like that on their own.

[Inkidu]

Despite what you hear America is in no danger of going into a draft over the Iraqi Conflict. It was just a question of the whole no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, creed, or age.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*smiles* It was only a very small mistake, and probably just a mis-phrasing then any real mistake, as I know you didn't think they were still drafting. But it was a pretty important to the convo phrasing issue so I figured it was worth mentioning.


On that note, I agree old draft is unconstitutional, but re-writing to add women to make it constitutional would oepn a whole new bag of worms...another reason I figure we are safe from the rumors of drafts.

Yes, it was technically a mis-phrasing. . .

I agree. . .or at least I hope so!

I agree ZK. If american soil was under attack, literally and invasion was occuring then yes..but I think -would liek to hope- that most people would pick up arms to defend their homes from a physical threat like that on their own.

*nods and grabs the shot gun that's kind of too long for her*

[RubySlippers]

Despite what you hear America is in no danger of going into a draft over the Iraqi Conflict. It was just a question of the whole no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, creed, or age.

I have a bad feeling regardless of who gets into office in November Bush is going to bomb Iran before he leaves office or back up Israel if they do it. We just agreed to sell them 1000 bunker buster bombs we aren't doing that for no good reason. Bush needs a reason to attack if Iran goes on the warpath and attacks Israel and supports open terrorism, cuts off or threatens our oil and our interests in Iraq and other regions will give him the excuse.

No draft just see the Middle East explode on us and see what other options we have left.

As for who can be drafted I would move to draft disabled people that are capable I can sit at a desk her in Tampa and work on a computer that frees up an able-bodied person to fight or do other service.

[Trieste]

Your thinking that this was a discussion. No it was a simple question with very fixed answers.

No, it doesn't, or there would be ONE single answer. There is rarely a single answer to "is XYZ constitutional" unless you want to talk strict constructionism... and even then you still have several issues with several answers. Right to bear arms, for example. Right to drink, right not to drink. Right to vote. Right to speak. Right to burn a flag. It's all interpretation.

And you posted in a discussion forum, and a discussion resulted. Deal with it.

[Schwarzepard]

I think the draft is wrong. . .in it's current state it is unconstitutional.  My opinion is, Nobody should be drafted Period.  Since there is a draft should women be drafted?  Though we like to think so we are NOT just as capable as men at everything.  Men are made differently and brought up differently. . .they ARE different.  If there was an all gender draft then women should be drafted into different positions than men.  My two cents.

I'll quibble a bit.

While men and women are different, there is such variation in the population that there are many women who are more military-capable than many men.  Many women have advantages which are often overlooked, like not being antler-bashing shitheads and just cooperating to get their jobs done.  Many times men don't want to look weak or crappy in front of women so they make more of an effort.  Important issues about having women serve in combat specialized military jobs include health (urinary tract infections from persistent unhygienic conditions), the possibility of pregnancy (under current regulations they don't deploy and units would lose combat strength), gender related social issues and crimes, and enemy response (Arab soldiers fought tenaciously during the Arab-Israeli wars when they thought they might have been facing Israeli units which included female soldiers). 

The usual reasons people criticize women being routinely assigned to combat specialties are usually not that valid or can be overcome with training.  The real issues are cultural myths, US military training isn't long or intensive enough, and discipline is somewhat weak.  After basic training, a female trainee who was an athlete is going to physically outperform a male trainee who wasn't.  The number of women who CAN be effective combat specialty soldiers is very large.  The number of women who have an interest in developing that potential is very small.

It really comes down to the character of the individual, but by necessity armies have to deal with macro-scale generalities.

My dad served in the army of his own free will.  He told me things that bother me. 

Truth.  The bad often drives out the good, leaving units absolute cesspools.  What most don't realize about the military is that order is often achieved by social consensus.  Official disciplinary action is often difficult to bring to bear, especially when the will is lacking. 

[Inkidu]

No, it doesn't, or there would be ONE single answer. There is rarely a single answer to "is XYZ constitutional" unless you want to talk strict constructionism... and even then you still have several issues with several answers. Right to bear arms, for example. Right to drink, right not to drink. Right to vote. Right to speak. Right to burn a flag. It's all interpretation.

And you posted in a discussion forum, and a discussion resulted. Deal with it.

It's called black letter law. If I had said is privacy protected by the constitution that would be discussion because privacy isn't expressly stated in the U.S. Constitution it's alluded to. (Gray law.) then it would be arguable, but seeing as gender discrimination is expressly stated in black and white the answers and arguments become far more limited.   

[Oniya]

The usual reasons people criticize women being routinely assigned to combat specialties are usually not that valid or can be overcome with training.  The real issues are cultural myths, US military training isn't long or intensive enough, and discipline is somewhat weak.  After basic training, a female trainee who was an athlete is going to physically outperform a male trainee who wasn't.  The number of women who CAN be effective combat specialty soldiers is very large.  The number of women who have an interest in developing that potential is very small.

There were apparently enough to force VMI (Virginia Military Institute) to go co-ed.  I was in college just north of there when it happened, and my school had tried to supply an equivalent program for women as an alternative option - of course, with the number of my fellow students who were just there for their M.R.S. degrees, it was bound to fail.

[Trieste]

It's called black letter law. If I had said is privacy protected by the constitution that would be discussion because privacy isn't expressly stated in the U.S. Constitution it's alluded to. (Gray law.) then it would be arguable, but seeing as gender discrimination is expressly stated in black and white the answers and arguments become far more limited.   

The problem is that even black law is negotiable and there will always be a question of interpretation. You could write a law that says "The sky is blue" and that would be fine, but sooner or later, you're going to get a lawyer or another lawmaker asking questions about night-time or stormy days... or sunsets... or whatever. All law is grey; some laws are just greyer than others.

For instance, the debate over the second amendment. That damned part about a militia just makes it hairy, and you get into whether legislation that limits the sale of guns to the underage or those previously convicted of crimes counts as infringing.

The right to vote. Last time I checked, convicted felons are not allowed to vote. They are citizens of adult age and usually sound mind. But no voting. Slavery is in the original Articles (I) and only later abolished by amendment... but when slavery itself was abolished, the ability of Congress to tax human imports was not actually explicitly abolished. So technically, if you're arrested for human trafficking, you can be charged taxes for it, too.

My point in all this is that you can make the law do flip-flops if you really want to. The Constitution is no different... so your request for a cut-and-dried answer is a wee bit demanding, if not impossible.

[ZK]

I will only support the draft when giant mecha become standardized in the military. When that happens, I'll join outright. ^.^

[Caehlim]

I have a bad feeling regardless of who gets into office in November Bush is going to bomb Iran before he leaves office

Don't worry too much. There's no automated button he can use to get robots to do it. If George Bush gave the order there are many humans who would have to make the decision to follow his orders and I think many of the generals would not follow a presidential order to initiate widescale bombing in such a circumstance.

That's just my opinion.

[RubySlippers]

Well women do not have to serve in combat even drafting women say at 25% of men could let them free up men to fight, the women doing jobs here at home or in bases in safe areas say Europe and Middle Eastern Nations away from the hard fighting. That is the use for the military services for women in WWII they often freed a man to fight while women drove supply trucks in the US or did clerical work.

But if you read my posted link several branches allow women in all military occupations and all allow women in the majority of them even if slightly so arguing they cannot serve now would be hard to refute on the numbers. I would even sue saying I could serve in a non-military capacity at home perhaps handling paperwork or working at a computer, freeing up an able bodied person for other duty. Why ignore the disabled as a source of military assets in some capacity? Same with gays can't they do the same kind of work even if you don't want them in combat?

[Trieste]

Don't worry too much. There's no automated button he can use to get robots to do it. If George Bush gave the order there are many humans who would have to make the decision to follow his orders and I think many of the generals would not follow a presidential order to initiate widescale bombing in such a circumstance.

That's just my opinion.

Oooh, you idealist, you. If nothing else, that confirms that you are not American. :P

[Inkidu]

Don't worry too much. There's no automated button he can use to get robots to do it. If George Bush gave the order there are many humans who would have to make the decision to follow his orders and I think many of the generals would not follow a presidential order to initiate widescale bombing in such a circumstance.

That's just my opinion.

The soldiers who don't follow orders are sentenced to dishonorable discharge and lose their 401k, generals who do not follow the presidents orders get the same.

The president is the highest ranking military official in the U.S. (Commander and Chief) his orders are not to be disobeyed the only general with the balls to do it was MacArthur, and he still got fired. The point being, and this is just to end this derailment, if Bush says bomb the generals say where and how much powder.

[RubySlippers]

Yes they can enforce service they can imprison you and strip away your ability to wok or function in normal society, my company and most do background and criminal record checks, a deserter or draft dodger would be a red light.

And desertion during a time of war can lead not to a dishonorable discharge but prison or execution as well, and if they refuse in combat can be shot for being a threat to the unit and failing to follow orders. Its perfectly legal to do that.

And Generals can refuse orders so can any military person but they will have to take the outcomes. A relative right now is being Stop-Lossed and already said he will go if ordered but not fight or touch a weapon or enter combat here or when he is in Iraq. They have him in the base jail while they figure out what to do with him the talk is a formal hearing moving for prison time.

[Mathim]

I have to tell this story, you guys'll love this. When the Iraq problem first started (during the beginning of the Shock and Awe bullcrap) one of my teachers and I made a sort of unofficial bet about whether or not the government was going to have to resort to drafting people in. I bet they would, and he bet they wouldn't, because he was positive there never would be one again. He put up the deed to his house, but it was unspecified what I was putting up on my end. About a month later, he withdrew from the bet, he was that scared of a draft becoming necessary. Fucked up, huh? That's how frightening shit got.

As for only drafting men...let me say this. Women are smarter, women are more qualified leaders, and women are much more vital for carrying on the species. I'd rather most of the male population be killed in war as long as the women remain. I mean, there's sperm banks and whatnot, for repopulating, and women would probably fix all the crap that's happening thanks to the male status quo. So in that regard, I believe it is a better option than treating women as equals, at least, when it comes to the chances of being cut down by machine gun fire or being burned alive or blown apart by a rocket-propelled grenade or suicide bomber.

As for forced birth control, I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it. Do I agree with it? No. Why? Because I believe that in the military, people are expected to exercise a certain amount of self-control. Ergo, if they're all resorting to what I'm sure amounts to disobeying orders, they ought to be kept a closer eye on or assigned/positioned in ways that prevent those kinds of relations from going on when it's inappropriate.
On the other hand, if a woman in the field was captured by an enemy group and was tortured and raped, I think she would be able to appreciate the idea of not being able to get impregnated in that situation, am I right?

The whole thing is a mess. The military does demand strictness but when forced service like the draft is involved, it's really unfair to everyone called into it against their will. The fact is, there is no solution. They've set it up to have no compromise.

[RubySlippers]

This is not official but a Warrant Officer in the family in Iraq said with the current deployments and plans of Israel he expects us to be bombing Iran and likely needing military containment after the elections and before the new president takes office. Bush already has the authorization to bomb Iran just what they consider the terrorists as in part of the government, all they need is a reason Israel will likely start and force us to act.

And for all your assumptions he is terrified they do not have the soldiers to contain Iran if they do as he suspects unleashing terrorists backed by them and ground troops into regions adjoining them including Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq is not unlikely of course. And they will be the victim that is want they want they can then make this a defensive war against a non-MUslim threat on Muslim land.

And he said if that happens a draft may not be optional anymore we may have a threat in four nations and Iran is not weak they can and will fight. We are stretched thin over there now and to invade Iran and secure it against a hostile government, population and religious leaders will need a full scale army to occupy it.

[Inkidu]

Mathim, the point isn't whether women are smarter, military birth control or whatnot. The point is with the amendments to the constitution that no one can be discriminated against because of gender etc. etc.

Does that make an all male draft unconstitutional? Now I like reasoned out answers but I will start limiting people to yes or no if they keep going of on the military birth control or whatnot.

Military birth control: Women serve with men fraternization with the opposite sex is illegal. The military knowing that they can't stop people from doing the do enforce mandatory birth control. No other evil reason other than you can't have an active duty woman with a bun in the oven.  End of derailment.

[Sherona]

The point of the matter, is everythng is politics. And no politician with any right mind, would inact a law forcing women to serve, and forcing women (Or men) to use Birthcontrol. Its one thing to Say "You sign up for the army, oyu know the risks so take BC" quite another to say "Your forced to join, so you are also forced to curb your own reproduction."

That being said, The constitution can also be said to be openly against drafting if one wants to nit pick and pry things apart. For everyone who died due to being drafted, they were denied "Life". For those who are drafted unwilling and must follow the stringent terms tehy are denied "Liberty" I mean anyone can find constitutional issues with anything, especially the draft.

[ZK]

I don't agree with mandatory birth control and at the same time, I do.

When at war, you -do not- want to be carrying a child, especially through that sort of hell.

But I stand by my decision, drafting shouldn't be unless the nation was invaded or giant mecha become standardized in the armies. Whichever comes first.

[Sherona]

No you don't want to be carrying a child. And most women who volunteer for war go on BC, the others don't have sex so don't bother. Its the "I am a happily arried woman, bending over backwards to get pregnant and now teh military says I have to go to war..and I have to take BC pills or shots that lower my fertility for up to a year after I finish taking them" That gets me.

Yes going off the shot or pill can make you fertile soon after, but your chances of getting pregnant is lowered for a while until your hormones adjust.

[Caehlim]

The soldiers who don't follow orders are sentenced to dishonorable discharge and lose their 401k, generals who do not follow the presidents orders get the same.

While I appreciate that there is a difference between the law, and what gets done, a soldier is under no responsibility to follow an illegal order. Such orders can be refused. In that political climate they may well receive a presidential pardon as well by the new president.

The president is the highest ranking military official in the U.S. (Commander and Chief) his orders are not to be disobeyed

I may be the Queen of May or the King of Classic rock. Titles do not confer power, you can only hope that this magic word "president" when waggled about enough can cause other humans to do what you say.

If you defy the laws that have endowed you with your cool sounding title then you'd better hope you have charisma or blind zealots who are fanatic about your title or you're cutting off the basis of your power.

I think many people in the US believe (correctly, legally speaking) that the constitution outranks the president.

[Inkidu]

The president has the rank to give the orders and massive bombing isn't illegal, end of derailment. 

[Sherona]

Unfortunately Caehlim yours is an idealist idea. Generals are career soldiers. They follow orders, when one is in the position more then once in one's career that following orders saves lives, then one tends not to look at orders too closely and a president is too politically correct to make a blatant illegal order.

That being said, Even if we do a bombing, the draft is so constitutionally edgy that it won't be ordered in..

[Caehlim]

end of derailment.

You know, you desperately make me want to undertake the deliberate attempt to derail this thread. However I won't since that would be disrespectful. Just warning you that a statement like that triggers the contrary nature of folk like me.

/Derailment.

Please continue with the conversation. Thankyou and sorry for the interruption.

[Inkidu]

Unfortunately Caehlim yours is an idealist idea. Generals are career soldiers. They follow orders, when one is in the position more then once in one's career that following orders saves lives, then one tends not to look at orders too closely and a president is too politically correct to make a blatant illegal order.

That being said, Even if we do a bombing, the draft is so constitutionally edgy that it won't be ordered in..

The draft itself is by no means edgy. It is one of the core doctrines of the American Constitution. The states got together and decided that anything for the defense of the nation. Now do I think it was instigated wrong or the gender issue could be wrong, yes. But the draft is a perfectly acceptable thing.

[Sherona]

Considering all the problems that have been brought up in this thread with the constitutionality of the draft, and keeping in mind that the constitution was drafted well before amny of the amendments taht make the draft dodgy and thus the admendments added does.

that being said, it would take way too much effort to re-structure the draft so that personal freedoms of women mainly to not be encroached upon, as well as allow for women to be drafted that I doubt anyone will want to do it.

The most logical course of action would be to withdraw troops in places we don't need ratehr then fill our own. Plus the fact that there are areas where women are not permitted in the armies so a draft would have to work around that as well.

Its edgy and not something we will probably need to worry about.

[Mathim]

I think it's insane that, after a war was fought against England to secure the independence of the United States, something about a draft/military thing like it wasn't put into the Constitution. I mean, all we had was, 'the military can't force people to let soldiers stay in their homes', or something like that. Didn't they think someone else might try to fight us and take over, and that everyone would have to have some rights suspended so they could be made to fight, and fight to their fullest at that? Of course, that would definitely have made it an all-male draft, back then...couldn't argue with the constitution if that was the case.

I don't get how war needs so many soldiers when the technology is this insane. It's not really 'war' if it's deciding which people to kill and which ones not to kill, that deserves another category altogether.

[Sherona]

Probably they did not want some insane meglomaniac leader starting wars for no reason grabbing all the people and forcing them to fight in said wars.

That being said, again, I would hope most people would not have to be made to defend their homes..

[Oniya]

If conscription is considered necessary but unconstitutional, then most likely Congress will amend the constitution.

Amending the Constitution isn't all that easy.  Look how long they've been pushing the 'anti-flag-burning' amendment, and that's a somewhat popular one.

Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

   1. Congress proposes amendments.
      As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

   2. The states propose amendments.
      The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

Number 2 has never been used.  Since the Bill of Rights, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed.  17 have been adopted, and two of those cancelled each other out (Prohibition).

Two-thirds is also the amount of votes needed to overturn a Presidential veto, and that's rare in and of itself.  Getting that and the 3/4 approval of the states, for something as unpopular as conscription - I don't see it happening.  Then you've got that 7 year time frame - if we're still in Iraq in 7 years, that's two more Presidential terms, and I predict by then, the war will be less popular than Vietnam.

[Sherona]

Wonderful way of putting it Oniya, I have to say I couldn't agree more.

[Ignaddio]

That being said, The constitution can also be said to be openly against drafting if one wants to nit pick and pry things apart. For everyone who died due to being drafted, they were denied "Life". For those who are drafted unwilling and must follow the stringent terms tehy are denied "Liberty" I mean anyone can find constitutional issues with anything, especially the draft.

Not to be nitpicky, but the Constitution does not grant you Life nor Liberty.  You are, however, free to pursue it. Things like the death penalty and imprisonment in general would not be possible if all Americans were granted inalienable life and liberty. I volunteered my service, so clearly my opinions on the draft are moot, but I feel that if women are to have the same rights as men in all aspects (and they should), they ought to have the same responsibilities.

[Oniya]

Actually, the word "pursuit" is specifically used in connection with happiness. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Reference: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

[Ignaddio]

Actually, the word "pursuit" is specifically used in connection with happiness. 

Reference: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

D'oh!

I stand corrected. >.>

That's what I get for running off half-cocked.

[Oniya]

It's okay - I have a tradition of watching 1776 at least once a year and grew up with the Schoolhouse Rock recitation of the Preamble.

[Atlus]

It's been a few years since history class, so bare with me if I'm mistaken. I just reread the constitution and the amendments and I can't find anything about women being declared equal. Before anyone misinterprets this, I am in no way saying that women aren't equal to men. I am saying I can't find it on the books. If it is not stated explicitly that women are equal to men then how is the drafting of men only unconstitutional? And again for clarity's sake I do not support the draft for anyone.

My personal opinion on the subject is that the draft should only be legal when the US is under direct attack by a sovereign nation and all other resources have been tapped. Even then I hesitate. As to whether or not it should be legal to draft women along with men, hell yeah. If we're all equal, then we all bear responsibility for our nation's security. And no, drafting women for desk jobs while the men folk go die is not truly drafting them. A soldier is a soldier, train'em, suit'em up, and ship'em out. Let everyone do what they can, without regard to gender. As far as the subject of birth control goes, I would assume BC medication would be a requirement. Is it an invasion of one's personal rights? Yes, kind of like....I don't know...being ordered to go kill and die for your country.

And since it came up earlier, if the US needs troops for something badly enough, there will be a draft. Political suicide or no, if we are under attack and need troops they will be acquired by any means necessary. If sept. 11th proved anything it was that the US is willing to suspend or deny personal freedoms in times of crisis. They take US citizens and hold them without trial. They spy on internet and phone transmissions without cause. Don't tell me they won't send unwilling soldiers to war or make women swallow a pill.

Okay, I'll come down from the soap box now.

[CaptainErotica]

  A little bit of insight from someone with real life experience. Sorry if some of this has been said already.

  When you sign your contract with the military you are in effect becoming their property. Of course they can't lawfully order you to commit suicide or other obviously stupid crap, but they can and will treat you as their property. I was personally put on report for "Destruction of Government Property" (hereafter DoGP) for punching a metal wall after my boss pissed me off. I have seen guys get put on report for DoGP for getting tattoo. It use to be okay, but recently they started cracking down on ink that was visible below a short sleeved uniform.

   As for experiments and ordering you to take shots, etc. When Iraqi Freedom started they issued an order that all active Service members be given a series of Anthrax vaccine shots. This vaccine was and I think still is experimental. Many people refused and were ordered to do it r face dishonorable discharge for failure to obey a lawful order. We were ordered to get Small Pox Inoculations which actually give you small Pox fin the affected area for a few weeks. I'm not lying for two weeks I was infected with small Pox, with no choice to say no.

   on the subject of birth control. I lost count of how many women I watched check into the ship one day and a month later were pregnant and trying to get out. Ordering women to take birth control is not a very far fetched concept and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea. I've worked with women that were ten times better at their job than some of the men, but for every hard working woman who does what she needs to do to prevent getting pregnant there were two that didn't and then everyone else was left picking up their slack. I can understand a married  woman in the service getting pregnant but the vast majority of them are young 18 or so girls. It isn't a perfect solution, but then again it isn't a perfect world we live in either.

I do apologize if what  have said offends some women. It is surely not my intent. I happen to think that if they  were to make birth control mandatory then they should make the punishment stricter on the males caught having sex with female shipmates -unless they are married of course.

On a rather amusing side note. did you know that it is against the UCMJ(Uniform Code of military Justice) to practice oral sex....actually anything but missionary.I'm assure it never gets used, but it is still there.

[Sherona]

Number one, voluntary enrollment very well could mandate BC in active duty women. Have us sign a form stating that if you sign up for the military you have to take precautions. That STILL gives women a choice. Its only in "You have no say in if you want to sign up for military, and you have no say in..."

My second question, I thought it was already against the military rules to fraternize with opposite genders? I was close to signing up, but didn't quite get all the ink dried up so I am not sure on this issue.

Draft for defense of our own borders due to a clear attack/threat yes could happen, and probably most would volunteer to duty, but draft for random sketchy wars? No, no one is going to kill their carreers to send people over to invade a country on a personal vendetta.

[Oniya]

On a rather amusing side note. did you know that it is against the UCMJ(Uniform Code of military Justice) to practice oral sex....actually anything but missionary.I'm assure it never gets used, but it is still there.

But - outside of various Snopes-busted urban legends, it's perfect birth control!  Ah well, military intelligence...

[Ignaddio]

Number one, voluntary enrollment very well could mandate BC in active duty women. Have us sign a form stating that if you sign up for the military you have to take precautions. That STILL gives women a choice. Its only in "You have no say in if you want to sign up for military, and you have no say in..."

My second question, I thought it was already against the military rules to fraternize with opposite genders? I was close to signing up, but didn't quite get all the ink dried up so I am not sure on this issue.

Draft for defense of our own borders due to a clear attack/threat yes could happen, and probably most would volunteer to duty, but draft for random sketchy wars? No, no one is going to kill their carreers to send people over to invade a country on a personal vendetta.

It is frowned upon, yes, at least in the Navy, but there are all sorts of married military couples, and even more just dating. The real issue is fraternization up and down the chain of command, across Commissioned/Noncomissioned and Senior Enlisted/Junior Enlisted boundaries. This applies to more than just romantic ties, but social and financial ties as well.

On a rather amusing side note. did you know that it is against the UCMJ(Uniform Code of military Justice) to practice oral sex....actually anything but missionary.I'm assure it never gets used, but it is still there.

There's another, less amusing article that only specifically forbids the carnal knowledge of children under the age of twelve. I think it's been updated since, but when I went to bootcamp in 2004 that's what it still said, with nothing elsewhere in regards to other minors. It also specifies that penetration is sufficient to complete the offence (in both articles), so clearly heavy petting is in the clear. >.>

[Sherona]

Ahh thankees Ignaddio for clearing it up for me :)

[OldSchoolGamer]

All I'll say is that if they get around to reinstating the draft in America, my advice to Americans is to run, not walk, to the exits.