Does The Draft Violate The Thirteenth Amendment?

[ladsin]

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Other

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

The short answer to your question is no, the draft is not a violation of the 13th Amendment – nor is it a violation of any other point of law.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the powers to raise and support Armies and to provide and maintain a Navy. It does not specify or limit how Armies and a Navy are to be raised (whether voluntary or by conscription, although neither term is used in the Constitution), although it limits fiscal appropriation. This Article remains the principal authority for the present day Defense Budget.

The 13th Amendment does not supersede or alter the body of the Constitution, or the enumeration of powers outlined in it.

[katiesmuff]

NO it doesn't, but in any case the US doesn't use the draft any longer.
I'm too young for sure and you are damn sure in the same boat as me as not actually knowing what it was like when our country did use the draft. I'm told by many who were around the actually the draft was a very good idea. For one thing pretty much every male at 18 was either drafted or went to college and the discipline the folks in the military learned was a big asset to leading a much better life once they got home again.

[BurgerLover]

Retarded

[wolfcat87]

They forgot to point out the dead, maimed, and mentally ill who returned and were never the same again...

[katiesmuff]

@wolfcat87 War is not a game and war is sometimes necessary so we can continue to have a free world to live in.

[wolfcat87]

Aaaaand, you've been brainwashed. XD That is very rarely the reason for war seeing as there's no such thing as a free world... The only country that even comes close is Switzerland.

[katiesmuff]

@wolfcat87 You think things are not good here in the US, maybe you should use the freedom we have here and relocate to Switzerland. Nobody will forbid you to do that, however many thousands a good men and women gave their lives so that you could have that opportunity should you desire to do that!

[wolfcat87]

Yup... brainwashed. XD If you think this country is free, then you have never learned U. S. History. If you think that soldiers fight for freedom, then you don't know history or current events. XD Also, I'm not fluent in any of the official languages of Switzerland. I already checked. I don't mind not being free. I'm just not brainwashed about my situation. XD We are all just pawns in someone else's game.

[katiesmuff]

@wolfcat87 Explain yourself? Just what is it you think our men and women in uniform fight for? I also believe English is used in Switzerland so you should be able to pick that up fairly easy! Your only a pawn in someone else's game if you let yourself be one!

[wolfcat87]

English is definitely not a widespread language in Switzerland. The main languages are French, German, and Romanche. I'd have to be fluent in one of those, live in the 3rd of the country that speaks it, and be able to afford to live there long enough and speak the language well enough and be social enough for my neighbors to vote me in.

Soldiers fight for big oil. Look up the Koch brothers. Most of this country pays them. The last war that was specifically about us was WW2, and that was an ego trip. We threw anyone who seemed too German into prison, and we locked up ALL Japanese Americans in interment camps, stole ALL of their assets, and denied them decent food and medical care based on race. During this time we also had laws targeting, blacks, Chinese, and Native Americans. We have NEVER had a single period in US. history where we didn't target multiple races with slavery, internment camps, reservation prisons, stealing children, stealing lives, etc.

[wolfcat87]

Even to this day, when people tell us that our rights and freedoms are in danger and being violated, we allow the U. S. gov to continue these human right violations, and we allow them to make laws to imprison anyone who whistle blows on entities that violate our rights. Some freedom. Also, every war since the 70's has been about big oil. Look up what the Middle East was like before we decided we wanted to run an oil pipeline through that area before Russia can. They were a more modern and educated region. We have started war after war there trying to conquer the area for that oil pipeline. At this point it's the U. S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, and radical terrorists all fighting for a region that would be stable (and was stable for many years) without us. Look up before and after pics. Look up the fact that OUR MONEY and TROOPS were used to train and arm child raping war lords in Afghanistan and to arm radical terrorists to destabilize Syria. 9/11 was us by creating and arming terrorists.

[wolfcat87]

www.nytimes.com/.../...n-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

money.cnn.com/.../index.html

www.globalresearch.ca/.../5410130

Notice that every time we magically "win" over some group in the Middle East, they already have a new "threat" ready to go to incite people to keep hating that area enough to allow the government to keep terrorizing and stealing in that region.

www.nytimes.com/.../cia-arming-syrian-rebels.html

www.nytimes.com/.../...-rebel-arm-train-trump.html

https://www.BBC.com/news/magazine-33997408

www.cnn.com/.../index.html

It's funny, people act like the tensions between the U. S. and Russia ended. In reality, people just stopped paying attention.

[wolfcat87]

www.globalresearch.ca/.../5510640

Speak with Middle Eastern people. The educated ones will tell you that the U. S. government is a money hungry terrorist entity in their home land. We've been tormenting them since WW2 when we decided to give away Palestinian soil to European white people who did not have any right to the Middle East. Those people have since then bullied other people in the Middle East with U. S. and European backing. The Israeli army regularly molests 40% of the children they detain, and they kill any Palestinians they want and attack other countries as they please in that region. No one is allowed to kick them out because of us. In return, they aide us when we attack. Since the 70's we have systematically waged war on a list of countries in the Middle East. Pull out a map and watch how our wars have moved in a very strategic pattern over the years. We took Israel soil. The Gulf War gave us more area for military bases.

[wolfcat87]

I could go on and on with many reputable sources from the U. S. and Europe. It's not a secret. No one cares to look at facts anymore. People like you assume that they must be fighting for freedom. They must be good. It's all a lie. Every single terrorist, every dead or raped child, every broken heart and broken dream is on the hands of fools like you. People like you who are just pawns in a world that has everything to do with money and nothing to do with freedom. Grow up and educate yourself. Then educate others. This brainwashing started during WW1 and WW2, but there is no excuse for it to continue in the age of mass information sharing across the globe. It's just willful ignorance at this point.

[katiesmuff]

@wolfcat87 We didn't start WW2 and what we did to Germans and Japs was absolutely necessary at the time to defend our homeland. Yes it is sad that Japanese Americans were put in camps, but we had no idea who was with us and who wasn't and you proceed with the plan safest for us. Nothing that the Americans did to the Japanese or Germans comes close to the atrocities those two nations did to humans. When you go to war and loose, loosing your assets is what happens.
You are off on your Switzerland facts as well. The nation has 4 different languages, but every Swiss person has also learned English which is exactly how the 4 different languages speak back and forth. You could live there just fine although I doubt they would want you. Maybe Serbia or one of those countries would work for you. Enjoy all their freedoms

[katiesmuff]

@wolfcat87 Then go live with all your Turbin Headed friends in the middle east. They could use a racist female like you to strap a bomb on so you could blow up school, market or some other spot where you could kill and injure people.

[wolfcat87]

How in the world did you take me listing everyone who was not given freedom in the U. S. as me being racist? Yet, you call people in the Middle East turban headed... You are definitely racist! XD Most people in the Middle East do not wear turbans. Also, most are not terrorists, as facts have demonstrated, the terrorists are funded by the U. S., so... Also, we bombed a Doctors Without Borders clinic killing a bunch of innocent patients and Western doctors. Thanks to people like you. Meanwhile they were on the phone calling home screaming that they were being bombed repeatedly and to please stop.

www.msf.org/kunduz-updated-death-toll-42-people-killed-us-airstrikes-kunduz-hospital

We were never under any serious threat during WW2. Hitler had already decided he had no intention of attacking us. The Japanese were the only ones who made that call, and they were never a real threat to the mainland. On the other hand... Hawaii was a stolen country that we took over against the will of the natives. Hawaii was not even a U. S. state at that time! It became a state in 1959. WW2 ended in 1945. Again, who are the terrorists?

There is no excuse for imprisoning U. S. citizens without just cause and stealing all of their property and denying them care! The fact that you just tried to justify that shows that you are no better than Nazis or the North Korean regime! YOU don't belong in a FREE country. So stupid and ignorant. XD

You CANNOT get Swiss citizenship if you only know English. You miss the whole point of everything. Such a waste of space and air. Everyone does not speak English, and Italian is rapidly declining. English has been increasing, that does not mean that I can use it to gain citizenship.

www.swissinfo.ch/.../2882966

At the end of the day, this is NOT a free world. As much as you are too dumb to comprehend this fact, I have laid out why WE ARE THE TERRORISTS and why even people living here are NOT FREE!

[LegateLanius]

No, it's granted by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress shall have the power to "raise and support Armies," to "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," which the supreme court has decided includes the authority to conscript (read: draft) people into an army in times of war.

[LegateLanius]

Of course recent developments as in the introduction of women into combat roles may make it considered that way as the first time they challenged it was during WW1.

[ladsin]

I guess the question is whether or not it's "necessary and proper" to compel military service.

[LegateLanius]

Well, in those terms, something akin to WW2 would fit under that. I don't think Vietnam should have had a draft as our country wasn't really under threat.

[nightdrot]

Your initial answer was stronger. Your point about WWII as against Vietnam is confusing principle and expedience.

Once allowed - as you are right that it is - under the Constitution, it is then left to the public, through its elected representatives, to decide when conscription is warranted. That is a circumstantial judgment.

Article 1, Section 8 - and the Supreme Court rulings made pursuant to it - allows for conscription. It does not compel conscription.

Still, overall, an excellent answer. You know your stuff. My compliments.

[ladsin]

The classic case of Schenck V US determined that even calling the draft into question was a criminal offense "shouting fire in a crowded theater" so that's a troublesome state of affairs.

[ladsin]

@nightdrot I’d also point out that we’ve had laws before that were later found to be unconstitutional. The Jim Crow laws are one recent example.

[nightdrot]

True, but there precedents are not easily or often overturned and the courts have a long history of rulings on conscription, conscientious objection and so forth. These will not likely be changed. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of on what pretext they might be.

Further, as we do not have conscription at the moment, there is no standing to bring such a case before the courts. Were conscription to be introduced it would likely because the Congress decided that there was an urgent need and the courts are not likely going to question a political decision made in that context.

[ladsin]

@nightdrot I would presume that the mandatory registration could go before the courts.

[nightdrot]

On what basis? How does it impact anyone's rights. At the risk of being obvious, draft registration has been in place since the late 1970s - this even after the tumult of the 60s. If grounds have not been found to challenge registration it is not likely to be anytime soon.

Besides, no harm can be shown - you cannot bring suit on a pretext of harm - and the courts again are not apt to challenge the mechanism by which a policy already found constitutional can be implemented. The courts are clear about willing the end without willing the means to the end.

[ladsin]

@nightdrot on what basis does t violate your right against compelled labor? Or on what basis would it now go to the Supreme Court?

[nightdrot]

We were discussing registration and it was to that which I was referring. It would be hard - given our current all volunteer military - to show that registration causes harm. Without cause - and there currently is none - there is no standing to bring suit.

As to conscription generally, it is allowed - as I believe someone else mentioned, under Article I, Section 8. The courts having recognized the authority of the Congress to implement means pursuant to its constitutional powers.

Beyond that, under the law and the Constitution, you can still be compelled to take certain actions. (Small example: Mandatory evacuations in emergencies effectively compel you to surrender your property.) There is no blanket exemption to any citizen regarding conduct or the prohibition of same.

No right is absolute - even under the Constitution. About the only case I think might plausibly be made is the exemption of women from the draft. This MIGHT be seen as a violation of the equal protections clause.

[Anonymous]

No, Constitution addresses this: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress shall have the power to "raise and support Armies," to "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," which the supreme court has decided includes the authority to conscript people into an army in times of war.

[ladsin]

Well one law can contradict another right? Like how the Jim Crow laws violated the 14th amendment.

[Opinion Owner]

True. The Constitution can be amended.

[madhatters4]

i'm not supreme court justice but i would think it doesn't consitute involuntary servitude on the grounds that you do accept certain responsibilities as a citizen of this country. paying taxes, schooling up to a certain age, etc.

also the constitution allows for the government to amass an army

[Dause]

In my opinion it most definitely does. Does it really matter though? We do all kinds of horrible things in the name of necessity.

Most countries would fall or fail in most intensive wars unless they resort to a draft. It is something meant to be used in times of extreme war, deemed vital to survival of the country.

In many ways, military service can be or feel akin to imprisonment or forced servitude. Many people comfort themselves over the horrible things that happen to and around them by the knowledge they were choosing to help people in doing so.

It would be even worse when it is done through a draft.

People can't be trusted to stand up and fight when the times call for it though. When all of the people with morals go to war and die, what do you think is going to remain in society? The only thing left are criminal minds, the skittish and selfish, and the pacifists who wouldn't want to resist them.

The draft is there to prevent the number of bad intentioned people in society from outnumbering the good too much. And, in general, to keep the country from falling.

[Catacious]

"Servitude" may be the word you question but by definition it means to be completely subject to someONE more powerful. This is to limit indentured servitude (being owned until a debt is paid) to a specific person. As there is no single person running the country who owns you, the draft is legal by the 13th amendment.

On top of that, if the Selective Service did not exist and we didn't have enough personnel to defend ourselves in war, then there would be no 13th amendment and no United States. The draft exists for a reason.

[Sixgun77]

If selective service is necessary to get people to defend their homes and families then im not sure I want anything to do with that culture to begin with.

[Catacious]

American territorial culture in the south is weird. People (in general) want to sit on their property with a gun and defend their family. In reality it's much more efficient to defend their home by supporting the army in one of many roles including non-combat support roles. You don't have to hold a gun to load a truck with food or bullets.

[Sixgun77]

Why not both?

[Catacious]

Because bullets don't need to be refrigerated, food does?

[Sixgun77]

I mean load the truck AND defend your property. Id rather live in an armed populace, where being unwilling to defend your property and loved ones yourself (rather than depend on government for everyday safety) is the ridiculed exception, not the norm. An armed citizenry is a deterrent to invasion (along with the regular military).

[Mexicoman101]

I mean I could see someone construe the thirteenth amendment in that way, I’d throw in that if the fourteenth amendment gives us equal protection then it’s kind bullshit to imply that it’s only men who should be subject to the draft. If you included women in the draft then public support for war would take a nosedive, so that’s really why you don’t see it happening.

[Mexicoman101]

Kind of*

[TadCurious]

According to the United States Supreme Court the answer to your question is no. But people have in the past tried to make the argument that the draft was involuntary servitude prohibited by the 13th Amendment. But in the following case the Supreme Court said it wasn't:
Arver v US 245 US 366 {1918}

"[A]s we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

[SketchForger]

Doesn't that only give women the right to vote? I don't think exclusively drafting men is against that if that is what you're implying. UNLESS I am mixing up my ammendments. I did bad on the the constitution test.

[Mexicoman101]

Yeah the nineteenth is the one about womens suffrage. Thirteenth is the anti-slavery amendment.

[SketchForger]

@Mexicoman101 holy shit I'm an idiot.

[ladsin]

Yes you're confused. The Thirteenth Amendment is the one that ended slavery and made involuntary servitude illegal except as a punishment for crime.

[SketchForger]

Ah ok.

Well I don't know, because a draft only happens when we need more troop, and unfortunately I don't see our next major war being fought with soldiers...

[Logorithim]

Drafts are bad ideas and have been an anachronism for quite some time.

That said, I think you'd lose in court with this argument, especially with your suit being against Selective Service, which should be scrapped.

[Sixgun77]

As someone who volunteered, I agree with you.

[NearlyNapping]

According to me, yes.
According to the courts, no.

The courts don't really give a good justification for it other than saying "That's not what it means".

Calling the militia was obviously intended from the start, but that was supposed to be a temporary stopgap measure until the real military arrived. It was not intended to be a full time replacement for the standing army, or to be sent overseas when there was no direct internal threat.

[Kurαȷ]

It does and doesn't.
It does because it exactly matches the definition of slave labor.
And it doesn't, because the thirteenth amendment was well aware of the fact so they added that part about "yeeeah... slavery that benefits us is not going to count as slavery, mkay?".

[Waffles731]

No, infact I would argue it fits perfectly with the spirit of the American Ideal of the Citizen Solider

[Waffles731]

Citizen Soldier.
The Minutemen and such.
Originally the U. S had no real Standing Army of any size.
Immediately after the civil war we cut down from a million soldiers to 20,000.
The idea being that like the minutemen of old, the old idea was that Americans are Citizens first and Soldiers only when needed.

[ladsin]

You think the militiamen were forced to join the militia?

[Scarecrow13]

Many of the founders opposed a standing army, they believed that in times of peace, it should be disbanded.

[ladsin]

@Scarecrow13 I don’t disagree with that

[Waffles731]

Yes actually they were.
The early militia evolved out of the town militia every able bodied man in New England was required to own a musket and to participate.
The oldest Army Units today date back to this.
There are a couple of Massachusetts National Guard Units who served first England, then when it turned into Great Britain. They served that. Then the continental congress which of course was the U. S

[Waffles731]

But these Men were citizens first and foremost.
Only soldiers in times of war

[Anonymous]

Yes, because its involuntary servitude that's not punishment for committing a crime.

The government is supposed to serve the people. If the people don't support a war enough to volunteer to fight it, then the government shouldn't fight it.

[Catacious]

Have you ever considered a defensive war where people don't want the war to exist but at the same time don't want to lose their homes and families?

[Sixgun77]

@Catacious that's one reason for the second amendment. The idea being that citizens come together to defend the homeland.

[Opinion Owner]

@Sixgun77 that's the EXACT reason for the second amendment. Nobody wanted the Civil War, but they fought.

Not one nation nor any alliance of nations on earth could possibly invade the US and not be obliterated, and it's because an armed populace of 300+ million, in addition to our regulars, cannot be defeated. For perspective, our active military is only 1.5 million, with another 1.5 in reserve, plus 800,000 law enforcement. The chinese have well over 20 million. They could float over here and have a chance against the military, but an armed populace would mow them down in short order

[Opinion Owner]

With only 3% of the populace actively fighting, the colonies won against the most powerful military the world had ever seen up to that point. All because the people refused to allow the Brits to ban weapons of war from personal ownership. Without that one factor, the British would still be a worldwide Empire.

[Sixgun77]

@Opinion owner: indeed, can't agree more. I also love how the statist crowd loves to misuse the term weapons of war. The colt m1911, lever action rifles, even shovels and pointy sticks are weapons of war.

[Eva323]

Not really because they also don’t draft the deaf population. Or quadriplegics. Its a law that says we can have you IF the military wants you. The military only wanted men because of their superior physical capabilities.

[ladsin]

Well that doesn’t make much sense. The blacks were who people wanted as slaves for various reasons, does that mean it wouldn’t be against the thirteenth if it were happening now?

[BurgerLover]

Sexist

[Eva323]

Ladsin I don’t understand what you mean exactly.

[Eva323]

@BurgerLover Fine, if that’s what you call sexist then I’m sexist. Congrats on your victory. 🙄

[BurgerLover]

why only men?
why dont women get drafted?
sexist

[Eva323]

@BurgerLove I didn’t exclude them the military did. They don’t want women who don’t live up to as high a standard. Not my fault. If you really want to know how I feel about the draft: I think the whole thing should be illegal. You shouldn’t be able to force people to join against their will. But that wasn’t the question.
And I am sexist. By the definition that most people use today, I would be called a sexist. I don’t think I’m being impractical about my beliefs or zealously trying to force them on others but most would call me sexist. The definition of the word is so decayed that it’s not insulting. I do believe that men and women are different and have different interests and skills than eachother. Just that’ll get me the title “sexist.” And if that is sexist then fine, I guess I am. You can’t insult someone by calling them what they are. You can only insult them by calling them what they’re not. You really think Hitler would have cared if you called him a Nazi? I think not.

[Sixgun77]

It sure seems to, but I need to read up on the authors of the agreement to know what it's actual intent is.

I also need to find out if the draft fits the legal definition of involuntary servitude. If it doesn't, then we need to see how that came about, and why.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

The draft does not in any way, shape or form fit the definition of involuntary servitude. To say otherwise is a specious argument. Article I section 8 gives Congress the authority to raise and support armies and a Navy. The 1918 Arver SCOTUS decision reaffirmed this. A lot of folks read involuntary servitude as anything the government makes one do that one does not want to do. By that rationale jury duty would be involuntary servitude. Jury duty has a sunset clause in that service ends with the trial or adjournment of a grand jury (whichever one has been called to serve). Similarly, the Constitution limits fiscal appropriation to two years, which is why those who were drafted for the Korean and Vietnam conflicts had a two-year limit on compulsory service. Those who were drafted in World Wars I and II served for the duration of the war. When the wars ended, so did their service obligation. If one was drafted indefinitely then the involuntary servitude argument would have merit.

[stuntbrain]

Forced military service certainly seems like involuntary servitude

[stuntbrain]

Section 2 is most important: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[worldscolide]

No, Soldiers get paid, slaves dont, On that same token though the draft should exist for both sexes or not at all. though most feminsts and women will disagree with that because they want equality without responsibility.

[ladsin]

Slaves were given housing and food as compensation. The idea behind he 13th is involuntary service.

[Tim-loves-it]

13th Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Nope

[I_smell_Ducky]

No, but even if it did without a strong military there wouldn't be a Constitution to worry about anymore anyways.

[ladsin]

And you think a draft is necessary for a strong military?

[I_smell_Ducky]

Not very often. But it isn't used very often.

[Zodiac10]

No sir I don't think the draft is necessary for a strong military. However, it does greatly impact military capabilities.

[Scarecrow13]

While certain legal decisions would disagree with me, I don't see how it couldn't be classified as involuntary servitude. That is exactly what it is. Even if you are getting paid that doesn't change it as even some slaves got paid.

[genericname85]

yeah but who cares for the constitution anyway? i mean having weapons for recreational purposes is against the second amendmend but still everyone owns weapons ignoring what the law says.

[ladsin]

It doesn’t say anywhere that having guns for recreational purposes is against the second amendment. In fact is explicitly stated quite the opposite. “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

[Sixgun77]

If you read things that the framers wrote and said you'd know that there's no reason not to have firearms for recreational purposes.

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson

[ladsin]

@Sixgun77 do you consider hunting recreational?

[Sixgun77]

Yes, it's considered a sport.
Also I agree with your comment, I was addressing the original comment (not your response).

[evie322]

no because of the 5th and 14th Amendment and Article II

[ladsin]

I don't understand. The fifth amendment is your right to not indict yourself, not be subject to double jeopardy, and due process rights.
The fourteenth amendment is about voting rights and due process...

[Sixgun77]

Article 2 doesn't seem to have anything to do with this. Please cite which section you're basing this on.

[BurgerLover]

It's sexist because its only for men