Topic: The Draft?

[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!

[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.

[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.