karn (11/05/82)
It is precisely this kind of language "interpretation" that makes personal freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution so vulnerable. Referring again to my dictionary, a few excerpts: involuntary - "Not voluntary; done or occurring without choice or against one's will..." Under "slavery", the discussion comparing the terms "slavery", "bondage", and "servitude" has this to say about the latter: "Servitude is compulsory service..." I fail to see why universally accepted word definitions should fail to apply to legal situations. My aim is not to necessarily to argue whether our government should have the right to force people into involuntary service, military or otherwise, although I think you can guess my views on this point. Rather, I wish to point out the hypocrisy in a government that interprets the 13th amendment in a manner most convenient to itself and in a manner completely different from common usage. I still feel that the analogy to "practicality" in the case of slavery is apt. If the citizens feel that a draft is needed, then they should change the 13th amendment to specifically allow it; otherwise, the government should obey the letter of the law. To not do this is to grant the judicial branch law-making powers reserved for the legislative branch. I suggest we move this discussion to poli-sci before it goes too far... Phil Karn
rew (11/05/82)
It seems to me that there is a big difference between the power that the constitution gives Congress to raise armies and the imposition of non-military universal service. While I happen to agree that Congress has the authority to impose a military draft, regardless of the 13th Amendment, I fail to see the support in the Constitution for the drafting of individuals for non-military duty. Bob Warren cbosg!nscs!rew
greg (11/06/82)
I happen to think that neither Congress, nor ANYONE has the "right" to impose any kind of millitary duty on anyone. To force someone to join an organization whose solitary purpose is to kill people/things/objects/places with the utmost efficiency is opression at its finest. The age of arms has ended. We can no longer afford morally, mentally or economically (sp?) to perpetuate the millitary "nightmare". Perhaps this belongs somewhere else but I can't keep my mouth shut whenever someone mentions that cancer - the millitary. Greg Travis One of the ones that did'nt sign up. decvax!pur-ee!isrnix!greg
mrs@sri-unix (11/10/82)
Greg Travis states that we can no longer afford morally, mentally or economically to perpetuate the military "nightmare". I feel that he has a very good idea. Imagine the U.S. as a place where nobody feels the need to settle disputes through violence, and indeed, the means to do so don't exist. A 'golden age' would undoubtably be brought about. This would be very similar to the 'golden age' of the Roman Empire, although hopefully without the aid of a bunch of legions. The problem comes however, when a bunch of uncivilized barbarians, with their outdated ideas of conquest and plunder break up the party. The 'golden age' society is then left with no means of protecting itself, and will eventually fall to the savages. The idea of a society without the need for a military is
soreff (11/16/82)
One thing that seems to have been unquestioned throughout this discussion is the equivalence between "society"'s need for a defense and a government policy which has resulted in a war. There are often major differences between the rulers and subjects in the U.S. (socioeconomic, average age, gender ratio, racial ratio). I don't see any reason for assuming that if the government wants to fight a war, that this reflects a need of society for defense. -Jeffrey Soreff