U.S. Government Selective Service System form came today......

reply to post by hawkiye


Who was President during the War of 1812 again?

Seriously, you are waaay out of your depth on this. I applaud your consistency though, it shows you are willing to embarrass yourself trying to feign knowledge.

Originally posted by hawkiye
They empowered them to raise armies not conscript free men.

Like all enumerated powers literalists, you are ignoring the necessary and proper clause. If selective conscription is necessary and proper, they can do it. Or they can enact mandatory universal service. Or they can use horribly sentimental recruiting campaigns to sell the military to Gen Y's helicopter parents. Whatever's necessary and proper.

The armies were raised by calling on the states to militias.

No, the militia power is in clauses 15 and 16. The power to raise armies is in clause 12. The two powers are unrelated. Congress's power to raise armies (and a Navy) is completely independent of its power to discipline, govern, and call forth the militia.

No where in the constitution is conscription mentioned therefore such authority is not granted!!!

You have a distorted understanding of what the Constitution is. The Constitution is not a list of every particular thing the government can and cannot do. It's a list of the government's general powers, and a grant of authority to enact laws "necessary and proper" to carrying out those powers.

Tell me, can you find "light bulbs" in the Constitution? You'd better go unscrew all the light bulbs in the Capitol then, and forbid any further lighting appropriation. Lightbulbs aren't in the Constitution, so they must be treason!

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Who was President during the War of 1812 again?

Seriously, you are waaay out of your depth on this. I applaud your consistency though, it shows you are willing to embarrass yourself trying to feign knowledge.

Are you mental? Conscription did not begin in the US until Lincoln overthrew the republic.

During the revolutionary war they raised an army by offering bonuses and free land when this wasn't enough they called on state militias.

During the war of 1812 congress authorized a regular army but they still used bonuses and offered 160 acres of land and President Monroe is authorized to call on the state militias.

it is clear from history a draft was not used and the state militias were called AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING as it was unconstitutional even though some wanted to institute it. Gee why did the first half of the history of America not use a draft if it was authorized in the constitution as history deficient pundits keep repeating? Because as Jefferson said they saw it as oppression it is only when Lincoln shredded the constitution that a conscription was instituted.

Conscription (Military Draft) In The Civil War

THERE WAS NO GENERAL MILITARY DRAFT UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR. The Confederacy passed its first of 3 conscription acts 16 April 1862, and scarcely a year later the Union began conscripting men. Government officials plagued with manpower shortages regarded drafting as the only means of sustaining an effective army and hoped it would spur voluntary enlistments.

But compulsory service embittered the public, who considered it an infringement on individual free will and personal liberty and feared it would concentrate arbitrary power in the military. Believing with some justification that unwilling soldiers made poor fighting men, volunteer soldiers despised conscripts. Conscription also undercut morale, as soldiers complained that it compromised voluntary enlistments and appeared as an act of desperation in the face of repeated military defeats.

Conscription nurtured substitutes, bounty-jumping, and desertion. Charges of class discrimination were leveled against both Confederate and Union draft laws since exemption and commutation clauses allowed propertied men to avoid service, thus laying the burden on immigrants and men with few resources. Occupational, only-son, and medical exemptions created many loopholes in the laws. Doctors certified healthy men unfit for duty, while some physically or mentally deficient conscripts went to the front after sham examinations. Enforcement presented obstacles of its own; many conscripts simply failed to report for duty. Several states challenged the draft's legality, trying to block it and arguing over the quota system. Unpopular, unwieldy, and unfair, conscription raised more discontent than soldiers.

Under the Union draft act men faced the possibility of conscription in July 1863 and in Mar., July, and Dec. 1864. Draft riots ensued, notably in New York in 1863. Of the 249,259 18-to-35-year-old men whose names were drawn, only about 6% served, the rest paying commutation or hiring a substitute.

The first Confederate conscription law also applied to men between 18 and 35, providing for substitution (repealed Dec. 1863) and exemptions. A revision, approved 27 Sept. 1862, raised the age to 45; 5 days later the legislators passed the expanded Exemption Act. The Conscription Act of Feb. 1864 called all men between 1 7 and 50. Conscripts accounted for one-fourth to one-third of the Confederate armies east of the Mississippi between Apr. 1864 and early 1865.

Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricia L. Faust

www.civilwarhome.com...

reply to post by hawkiye


Yeah, debunked that one already. Try again.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Like all enumerated powers literalists, you are ignoring the necessary and proper clause. If selective conscription is necessary and proper, they can do it

You mean like the literalists who wrote the constitution? Thanks for illustrating the ignorance of Americans on their own history! Are you seriously trying to say they Founders did not literally mean what they said in writing the constitution? Amazing! Then why did the literally do it exactly as I said they did until they were all dead and Lincoln shredded the constitution? Did the constitution change meaning or did treasonous criminals subvert it?

Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
[in the Kentucky Resolutions 1798] [Issue #57]

The constitution is a restriction on the federal government ( the chains Jefferson speaks of) not the people. IF IT'S NOT IN THERE THEY CAN'T DO IT!!! What part of that is so hard to understand...

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Yeah, debunked that one already. Try again.

What is you think you debunked? it is a historical fact there was no conscription until the civil war.

reply to post by hawkiye


Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you.

He stated, "It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you.

He stated, "It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."

Really now? Maybe you could cite the source of that quote? So you think that the constitution can mean anything any person wants it to mean? So what would be the point of having a constitution then?

But you are in fact dead wrong Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist of the constitution (as were the majority of the founders) and often advocated using it to rein in overbearing government!

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81

Need I quote more?

reply to post by hawkiye


Did I say he was a strict constructionist?

It's a paraphrase of his letter to Samuel Kercheval.

This thread isn't about what Thomas Jefferson's position was. It's about Selective Service and the draft.

Unless you have any more nonsense to post about that I think it's all wrapped up.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Did I say he was a strict constructionist?

It's a paraphrase of his letter to Samuel Kercheval.

This thread isn't about what Thomas Jefferson's position was. It's about Selective Service and the draft.

Unless you have any more nonsense to post about that I think it's all wrapped up.

So you lied and tried to pass it off as a direct quote... Sigh! So historical facts are non-sense to you ok I see. I said the founders opposed conscription you foolishly tried to argue against it and got destroyed in a short history lesson. Now since you cannot accept your defeat and embarrassment you are just displaying ignorance and stubbornness in your emotional attachment to your false ideas. You really should quit before you embarrass yourself further but I won't hold my breath. I have proven you wrong with historical facts and there is many more where that came from. The fact is the founders held to the strict edicts of the constitution and did not use conscription and it lasted up till the civil war.

How can a people be free if a government or monarch can take a mans life at will to die in unjust illegal wars? They cannot be free if that is the case. To bad most Americans willingly accept their slavery even to the point of being sent to their deaths or having their children sent their deaths for the folly and corruption of government crooks and thieves... Your attitude is the prevailing attitude and is what enables them to enslave the people!

reply to post by hawkiye


It's a common quote attributed to Jefferson. I just happen to know what it's from.

Your assumption is that you are free. You are not. You never were. That is just something they tell you in school to simplify the reasoning between subject and citizen in 5th grade civics. The difference, in grown up terms, is you get limited participation in the decision making of the country, but it doesn't negate having responsibility to uphold that system. That is the exchange. Participation means that the American system can call upon you. Simply, "freedom isn't free."

Hence the Founders found it reasonable to draft people into service during times of need to protect that system.

While you quote people who were morally opposed to conscription that facts are that they happened and it is legal. Their opinions are still just opinions and do not hold the gravity of law.

You're opposed to the draft. Fine. I can respect that. You and Thoreau can go to jail for refusing to participate. Whatever. Have all the moral objections you want. You're entitled to do so. Fight to change the system. But don't pass off your opinion as the correct legal discourse. It's not.

The reality being an American isn't what you think it is. There is a price imposed for being one.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by hawkiye

 

It's a common quote attributed to Jefferson. I just happen to know what it's from.

Your assumption is that you are free. You are not. You never were. That is just something they tell you in school to simplify the reasoning between subject and citizen in 5th grade civics. The difference, in grown up terms, is you get limited participation in the decision making of the country, but it doesn't negate having responsibility to uphold that system. That is the exchange. Participation means that the American system can call upon you. Simply, "freedom isn't free."

Hence the Founders found it reasonable to draft people into service during times of need to protect that system.

While you quote people who were morally opposed to conscription that facts are that they happened and it is legal. Their opinions are still just opinions and do not hold the gravity of law.

You're opposed to the draft. Fine. I can respect that. You and Thoreau can go to jail for refusing to participate. Whatever. Have all the moral objections you want. You're entitled to do so. Fight to change the system. But don't pass off your opinion as the correct legal discourse. It's not.

The reality being an American isn't what you think it is. There is a price imposed for being one.

edit on 6-12-2012 by GreenGlassDoor because: (no reason given)

Classic.... Sigh! As I said you know nothing about history and even allege the founders intended for us to be slaves and then unbelievably exclaim we should except it... Bigger Sigh! What you describe is democracy there is a reason why democracy is not mentioned in the constitution but I will not go into it since you are woefully lacking in American history already, it would b pointless...

I never said I was 100% free but I damn sure will not except slavery and will fight for my freedom every step of the way hence my signature link! To bad more Americans do not have the same attitude as we would likely not be having this conversation.

And then amazingly you go on to say the founders thought a draft was reasonable when I just got through proving to you they did not an purposely DID NOT DELEGATE THAT AUTHORITY to the federal government and never implemented it!... As I have shown it was not till the civil war and Lincoln shredding the constitution that a draft was used. And I bet you thought Lincoln was a hero and freed the slaves... He mad the rest of us slaves as you admit we are and set the stage for the garbage and anti-American system we have today.

A price imposed by who? You have no clue what it means to be an American along with the majority of Americans which is why every day we look more and more like a socialist communist fascist country as you all accept your slavery as "Just the way it is"... Amazing.

There is no need for a draft in America if there is a just cause enough Americans will flock to fight for it. It is all the illegal undeclared unjust wars the politicians get us into that they fear they need a draft for... Go ahead and send your sons and daughters off to die as cannon fodder for banksters and oil some of us will stand for freedom regardless!

Originally posted by hawkiye
You mean like the literalists who wrote the constitution?

No, I mean the literalists who stop reading before they get to the end of Article I, Section 8, or simply refuse to believe it. The last clause is the one that requires one to apply a certain amount of interpretation to the preceding clauses. Although, even if that clause were lacking, common sense would tell one that the power to enact laws furthering the enumerated powers was implied. This is where literalists, as I use the term, part ways with reality. They appeal to a reductionist reading of a selection of text in support of some position which they wish to defend. They do not take into account other parts of the text which would tend against their favored interpretation of their selection. This is especially shameful when the disregarded portion tells you how the text as a whole is to be interpreted, as the Constitution does via the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I also note, without further comment, that armies and militias are different things, and the Armies clause and the Militia clauses are separate and distinct. A real literalist would therefore not interpret the Armies clause as a mere extension of the Militia clauses, as you have done.

Thanks for illustrating the ignorance of Americans on their own history! Are you seriously trying to say they Founders did not literally mean what they said in writing the constitution?

No, I mean they literally meant what they said, but you are either not reading the whole thing or not interpreting it correctly.

Amazing! Then why did the literally do it exactly as I said they did until they were all dead and Lincoln shredded the constitution? Did the constitution change meaning or did treasonous criminals subvert it?

Why is how they did it before Lincoln relevant? If you base your argument on historical precedent, you are departing from the literal language of the Constitution, which empowers the government to enact "necessary and proper" laws to "raise Armies." Don't you believe the Framers of the Constitution meant what they literally said? I fear I have become the Constitutional literalist (albeit I read more of the litera), and you are the one who thinks the Founders did not literally mean what they said in writing the Constitution.

Have you considered the possibility that the draft was always Constitutionally permissible, but it was not "necessary and proper" until the existential threat posed by the Civil War? That would explain the lack of a draft in the first half of the 19th century, a time of relatively limited conflict. Have you considered the possibility that it remains "necessary and proper," even today, to maintain a registry of those who may be drafted if the draft itself ever becomes "necessary and proper" again?

(I won't get into an argument about whether or not a draft existed before the Civil War. Let's just say it's fertile ground for debate but leave that field fallow for the moment.)

The constitution is a restriction on the federal government ( the chains Jefferson speaks of) not the people. IF IT'S NOT IN THERE THEY CAN'T DO IT!!! What part of that is so hard to understand...

I don't know, I'm trying to figure out why this is so hard for you to understand, but I'm hitting a wall here. I think it's because you reject outright any argument that does not support your position, whether the argument comes from the Constitution, history, or the Supreme Court. If you're fundamentally unwilling to engage with ideas, you won't understand those ideas.

Oh, and I can quote-mine, too. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 29:

It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws ... .

Don't think of it as conscription, think of it as providing required assistance to officers entrusted with the execution of lawful policy.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Although, even if that clause were lacking, common sense would tell one that the power to enact laws furthering the enumerated powers was implied. This is where literalists, as I use the term, part ways with reality.

NO! This is exactly the kind of nonsense the constitution was written to protect against. To prevent government from taking powers unto themselves not delegated to them. The constitution is the law the federal government must abide by. Congress can only pass laws within its confines it cannot add powers not delegated withing the constitution.

This is why congress and the federal government did not use conscription until Lincoln destroyed the Republic.

They do not take into account other parts of the text which would tend against their favored interpretation of their selection. This is especially shameful when the disregarded portion tells you how the text as a whole is to be interpreted, as the Constitution does via the Necessary and Proper Clause. 

Really perhaps you could quote the language clarifying raising an army requires conscription? And then you can explain to us why most of the founders spoke against it and never used it?

Your argument is a joke I have already proven the Founders were against a draft first by their not delegating it as an authority in the constitution, by their writings, and by the fact they did not ever use conscription because it is against the law.

Passing laws to raise armies has to be done within the scope of delegated constitutional authority there is no such authority for military conscription period. Even your quote by Hamilton does not insinuate authority for conscription or forced service.

Why is how they did it before Lincoln relevant?

Wow just Wow... Because they wrote it made there intentions clear in ample writings and it is the law the federal government must abide by and it has a specific process to change it. The SC nor the legislature can just change it willy nilly as the constitutionally deficient seem to think... Sigh!

Read some of my previous posts in this thread to others I have already proven my points beyond doubt and proven you and them wrong with historical facts. It is yours and the majority of Americans lack of history knowledge reason and logic that has led America to the brink of disaster.