james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec) (03/06/84)
<wombats don't go to war>
If the Supreme Court were ever to declare the Draft unconstitutional
it would be removing one of the greatest supports of the constitution
itself. There are two major reasons for this:
1) America needs highly trained and motivated men to defend itself.
Nowhere but in the regular army, can the required training be accomplished.
A glance at American history will be enough to assure us that the
Militia, or Volunteers in time of war, just isn't good enough.
2) America needs an Army with a stake in society. An Army composed
entirely of long service regulars will tend to drift away from society
an be loyal only to itself. A look at South America will show us that
a just legal system cannot exist side by side with an army with only
internal loyalties. For those of you who don't think that it can
happen in the good ol' US of A, look up some of the dictatorial powers
that G. Washington had given to him by Congress during the Revolutionary
war.
Aside from its legal responsibilities, a Court must never forget
that it has a moral and political resposibility to uphold the Nation
that established the court itself. To do otherwise would be self-defeating.
Y. H. and O. S.
Jim Borynec
..alberta!james
UBIQUEsmeier@ihuxt.UUCP (S. Meier) (03/06/84)
> ... For those of you who don't think that it can >happen in the good ol' US of A, look up some of the dictatorial powers >that G. Washington had given to him by Congress during the Revolutionary >war. ... please note that our present constitution and system of government didn't exist during the Revolutionary War. The Congress you refer to were the Continental Congresses, not the Congress we all know and love today. I'm not trying to argue your point that a military coup is possible even in the U.S.A., but I don't think your example is at all relevant. ``S''
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/07/84)
Are we to assume from the tone of James Borynec's posting that he is an American, even though he is posting from Edmonton (Canada)? Mark Brader, Toronto (Canada)
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (George Sicherman) (03/08/84)
== The question of the Draft aside, I am not sure that the courts are obliged to act so as to support the government that created them. A venerable axiom of common law states: "Fiat justitia, ruit coelum." American courts generally honor this principle. (Though I suspect that the Chief Justice finds it galling ...) Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!colonel
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (03/10/84)
The constitutionality of the draft has been tested in the
Supreme Court before, the first case being brought up
during the First World War. The argument was that it
voilated the "involuntary servitude" clause of the 12th [?]
amendment. However, it was upheld because the litigants
had not been denied due process of law.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fish