o

of course you need the draft, to instill some discipline into a younger generation who has none and it doesn't need to be a two year enlistment, it can be three months basic with a requirment to report to the local national guard fro a further period of service.

What you miss is that some individuals will like the military and want to stay, this will improve enlistment, for some this will be the first real job they have, a life changing experience, they will be pulled off the streets and start to see things differently. The corps can be directed to work on civic projects such as levies and roads and disaster recovery.

I read this piece and I see it as very negative, many roadblocks

A proposal to include women in the military draft, supported in Congressional testimony by the heads of the Marine Corps and Army, was stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act by a close vote of the House Rules Committee this week.

There has not been any draft for about 40 years.

The proposal was to make mandatory for women, signing up with the Selective Service System at age 18, as is the case with men.

Actually drafting women for combat roles, or members of the LGBTQ community, is a bad idea. Some may be physically able to perform whatever role there is. My judgment call is that it would result in a weaker fighting force than an all-male military. Military combat is not a good place for social experimentation.

A downside of the all-volunteer force is that the best, brightest, and the richest are generally not included. Millionaires and billionaires control the levers of political power and can decide to engage in wars or conflicts for corporate profit, while not endangering any of the elite's children.

One of the greatest successes of this nation in the latter part of the 20th Century is the all-volunteer service. The Pentagon spent years and billions of dollars in a massive effort by experts to recover from the disaster of Vietnam. We came back with a fully professional, highly trained and functional military service.

This guy is smoking some good shit. We came back with the most expensive hi-tech toys in the history of the planet. When the men were sent into a combat situation, they lacked the basics such as up-armored personnel carriers and bullet-proof vests, not to mention enough men and equipment, including ships and aircraft.

http://wtkr.com/2013/05/02/enlisted-forced-out-while-navy-has-more-admirals-than-ships/

Enlisted sailors forced out while Navy has more admirals than ships

Posted 4:55 pm, May 2, 2013
by Mike Mather
News Channel 3, Hampton Roads, VA
Updated at 09:56am, May 3, 2013

Norfolk, Va. - In World War II, there were 30 Navy ships for every admiral. Now, the Navy has more admirals than ships.

That's a point not lost on Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner.

"I want to see the Pentagon cut back on some of this “brass creep” both in terms of numbers and some of these perks," Warner said.

Not long ago, the Navy forced out 3,000 mid-career sailors. Military budget cuts have scrapped air shows, delayed deployments, and threatened civilian contractors with two-week furloughs. Craig Quigley, a retired rear admiral who heads the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, says the cuts -- while not as bad as first feared -- will ripple past the local bases.

"You’re not going to buy the new car, you’re going to fix up the old one. You might cancel the family vacation. You are going to have to adjust your own household finances to accommodate 14 days without pay," he said. "If you are a small business with only a handful of employees, you might not survive."

At the same time, the Pentagon has added admirals and generals. There are now nearly a thousand. Many of those top officers are surrounded with entourages including chauffeurs, chefs and executive aids. Top flag officers have private jets always at the ready. They live in sometimes palatial homes and frequently travel in motorcades. Former Democratic Senator Jim Webb asked the Pentagon why the Air Force has more four-star generals than the Army, even though the Army has almost twice the manpower. Across all service branches, Warner said, the number of people at the bottom has shrunk while the number of generals and admirals has swelled.

[...]

A top-heavy military is not one built to win wars.

For a collection of essays on Conscription, below is a pretty good book.

Amazon link

The Military Draft: Selected Readings on Conscription (Hoover Institution Press Publication) First Edition

by Martin Anderson (Editor)

15 Used from $5.72

Series: Hoover Institution Press Publication (Book 258)
Hardcover: 689 pages
Publisher: Hoover Inst Pr; First Edition edition (October 1982)

The writers run the gamut from Ben Franklin, Elihu Root, and James Monroe to modern writers.

How do you feel bout the constitutional boot camp idea, -- no camp, no vote?

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep391&id=710#710

No 1044, Hart v United States, C A 3d, 391 US 956 (1968), cert denied

—Dissent to cert denial by Justice Douglas

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep391&id=690#690

No 1072, Holmes v US, C A. 7th Cir, 391 US 936 (1968) cert denied

—Dissent to cert denial by Justice Douglas

"Thoughts on the Conscription Law of the U. States—Rough Draft Requiring Revision,"

by Roger B. Taney, Copied from the Unpublished Manuscript (in His Own Handwriting) by M. L. York for Geo. Bancroft, 7 May 1886.

By the Act of Congress entitled an Act for enrolling and calling out the national forces and for other purposes (generally called the conscrip­tion law) all able bodied male citizens of the United States between the ages of twenty and forty-five years except as thereinafter excepted are declared to constitute the national forces and liable to perform military duty in the service of the United States when called out by the Presi­dent for that purpose.

The 2nd Section excepts and exempts from operation of the Law the Vice President of the United States, the Judges of the various Courts of the United States, the head of the various executive depart­ments of the government, and the governors of the several States, sun­dry other descriptions of persons are also exempted from family considerations, or want of health, whose exemption is not material to the matter now before the Court.

The 18th Section provides that the persons called out shall be lia­ble to serve for a period not exceeding three years.

The question to be decided is,—Does Congress under the Con­stitution of the United States possess the power it has in this instance exercised?

In determining this question it is necessary that we should fix clearly in our minds the relative powers of the general and State gov­ernments, and the attitude in which they stand to each other when exercising their respective powers.

The confederation which existed prior to the adoption of the pres­ent constitution was a mere league of independent States. Each State retained the entire sovereignty within its own territorial limits, and the confederate power could not exercise forcibly any authority civil or military by its own officers within the territories of a State without its consent nor did it possess any power within these limits in any case paramount and superior to that of a State.

It was under these circumstances and in this state of things that the present Constitution was formed.

By adopting this Constitution, the people of the several States cre­ated the government of the United States and delegated to it certain specified powers of sovereignty within their respective territories; but in express terms retained all the powers not thereby conferred on the U. States, in their own hands. Two separate governments are thus to exercise powers of sovereignty over the same territory and the same people at the same time. The line of division between them is marked out. Each of them is altogether independent of the other in the sphere of action assigned to it. The power of the Federal government is para­mount to that of the State within the limits of its delegated powers. The authority of the several States is equally paramount within the limits retained by the States—neither owes allegiance to, or is inferior to the other, being both sovereignties they stand on equal ground—and the Citizen owes allegiance to the General government to the extent of the powers conferred on it and no further—and he owes equal alle­giance to the State to the extent of the sovereign powers they re­served.—The rule as to allegiance and the reason of the rule are clearly stated in I Blackstone's Commentaries, 366, in the following words: "Allegiance is the tie or ligament which binds the subject to the King in return for that protection which the King affords to the subject." — And as neither the Federal government, nor that of a State, could law­fully afford protection to the Citizen beyond the limits of their respec­tive powers, no allegiance can be claimed or is due from the Citizen to either government beyond those limits. It is a divided allegiance but not inconsistent—the boundaries of each sovereignty being defined and es­tablished, and not interfering with one another, and each independent of the other in its own sphere of action.

These principles were decided by this Court unanimously and upon much consideration in the case of Ablemore vs. Booth, 21 How. 366. But the great importance of the case now before the Court makes it proper that I should again refer to the clauses in the Constitution which bear upon the subject. Clause 16, S. 8, Article I. authorizes Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof.["] And again the second clause of the 6 article declares that ["]this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all trea­ties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.["]

And Article [10] of the amendments to the Constitution declares "that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.["]

These clauses show that the sovereignty of the general government is not a general & pervading one—but is confined to the powers dele­gated by the Constitution. And all the rights and powers of sovereignty not delegated are reserved to the States. The sovereignty of the State therefore to the extent of this reservation is wholly independent of the general government.

The last mentioned clause it will be observed was an amendment to the original Constitution after it had been fully discussed before the people and in the conventions of the different States, and was man­ifestly adopted to show more clearly than the original instrument was supposed to do, that no general supremacy over the States was intended to be conferred on the Federal government, and to show by the plainest and most positive words that the States were still sovereignties in their character.

Indeed the sovereignty of the States is expressly recognized in the 2d clause of the 2d Sect, of the 4th Article which provides that "a person charged in any State with treason, felony or other crime who shall flee from justice and be found in another State shall on demand of the Executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime." The State must be sovereign, and the party accused must owe it allegiance in return for the protection it affords him, or the crime of high treason could not be committed against it, nor its Courts have jurisdiction of the offence.

It follows from what is above stated, that the Federal government has no inherent, and original powers of sovereignty. It has only what the States delegated—and any exercise of sovereign power beyond these limits would be a usurpation of State sovereignty—and conse­quently illegal.

This brings me to inquire whether the power exercised in passing the Conscription Act above mentioned has been delegated to the Fed­eral government.

In pursuing this inquiry we must not confine our attention to a single clause and construe it as if it stood by itself apart from all other provisions. The whole instrument must be taken together—general words in one clause may be restrained in the meaning by other provi­sions in the instrument and no construction can by any just rule of construction, be given to any one clause, that would make it repugnant to the plain words of another and make the Constitution so carefully and deliberately prepared inconsistent with itself.

Guided by this well established and familiar rule of construction— I proceed to examine the clauses in the Constitution which bear di­rectly on the question.

The Constitution establishes and recognizes two kinds of military force entirely different from each other in their character, obligations and duties.—The 12th clause of the 8th Section of the 1st Article gives to Congress the power to raise and support armies. The power is gen­eral,—the number is not limited and it embraces times of peace as well as times of war, when raised it is exclusively subject to the control of the United States authorities.—It is a body of men separated from the general mass of citizen—subject to a different code of laws liable to be tried by Military Courts instead of the Civil Tribunals—and may be employed at all times in or out of the United States, at the pleasure of Congress—and willing or not willing forced to obey the orders of their superior officers. And in the 3rd clause of the 10th Section of the 1st Article it is provided that "no State shall without the consent of Con­gress [. . .] keep troops or ships of war in time of peace."—The powers given to the general government to raise and support armies, neces­sarily carries with it the power to appoint their officers, and the power to make rules and regulations for its government is given by the 14th clause of the Section and Article last above referred to. [Art. 1, Sect. 8] These rules and regulations so far as they concern the individuals who compose the army are altogether independent of State authority,—and the control of the whole body is exclusively and absolutely in the general govern­ment.—They compose the national forces,—or what is called in the Constitution the land forces of the United States.

The other description of military force is the militia over which by the express provisions of the Constitution the general government can exercise no power in time of peace, and but a limited and specified power in time of war.—It will be observed that as relates to the Army the power is given to raise and support it, a power which Congress in its discretion may or may not exercise. But the militia is spoken of, as a known military force, always existing and needing no law to bring it into existence and merely requiring organization, discipline and train­ing to make it efficient.

Thus the clause 16—in the Section and Article aforesaid declares that Congress shall have power "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and [for] governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of train­ing the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The clause immediately preceding (15) gives Congress the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. But what description of per­sons composes the militia who are thus to be officered and trained by the State,—and may be called to aid the general government in the emergencies above mentioned? The answer will be found in the 2d amendment to the Constitution which declares that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, [the] right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia is therefore to be composed of Citizens of the States, who retain all their rights and privileges as citizens who when called into service by the United States are not to be fused into one body—nor confounded with the Army of the United States, but are to be called out as the militia of the several States to which they belong and consequently commanded by the officers appointed by the State. It is only in that form or organi­zation that they are recognized in the Constitution as a military force.

The United States can exercise no authority over them except only in the contingencies specified in the Constitution.

This . . . is plainly and distinctly expressed in the 1st clause of the 2nd Section of the Second Article which declares that—

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

The distinction between the Army of the United States and the Militia of the several States and the power which the President may exercise over them respectively is here clearly stated. He has no power over the Militia unless when called into the actual service of the United States. They are then called out in the language of the Constitution, as the militia of the several States. The General government has no mili­tia, it has only the Army and Navy—The militia force duly organized and ready to be called out belongs to the several States and may be called on in the emergencies mentioned to aid the land and naval forces of the United States.

But if the act of Congress of which I am speaking can be main­tained all of the clauses in the Constitution above referred to are abro­gated. There is no longer any militia—it is absorbed in the Army.— Every able bodied Citizen, not exempted by that law, belongs to the national forces—that is to the Army of the United States. They are not to be called out as the Militia of a State—but as a part of its land forces—and subject as soon as called on to all the obligations of a pri­vate soldier, in the ranks of the regular army.

The Generals, Colonels and other Officers appointed by the State according to the provisions of the Constitution are reduced to the ranks, and compelled to march as private soldiers and obey the orders of such persons as the President may select to command them, and they and every other able bodied citizen except those whom it has been the plea­sure of Congress to exempt, are compelled against their will to subject themselves to military law, to be tried by military Courts instead of the civil tribunals—and to be treated as deserters if they refuse to sur­render their civil rights.

It appears to me impossible to believe that a Constitution and form of government framed by such men can contain provisions so repug­nant to each other. For if the conscription law be authorized by the Constitution, then all of the clauses so elaborately prepared in relation to the militia, coupled as they are with the declaration "that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State," are of no practical value and may be set aside and annulled whenever Congress may deem it expedient.

The power to do this is, I understand, claimed under the clause which gives Congress the power to raise and support armies.

It is true that the power is delegated without specifying the manner in which the armies are to be raised. But no inference can be drawn from these general words that would render null and inoperative the plain and specific provisions in regard to the militia, to which I have above referred. No just rule of construction can give any weight to inferences drawn from general words, when these inferences are op­posed to special and express provisions, in the same instrument.

But apart from this consideration the words themselves, even if they stood alone, will not, according to their known and established use and meaning in the English language, justify this construction.

During the period when the United States were English Colonies, the Army of England,—the standing army,—was always raised by vol­untary enlistments,—and the right to coerce all the able bodied subjects of the Crown into the ranks of the Army and subject them to military law, was not claimed or exercised by the English government—and when the power to raise and support armies was delegated to Con­gress, the words of the grant necessarily implied that they were to be raised in the usual manner.—And the general government has always heretofore so understood them and has uniformly by its own officers recruited the ranks of its "land forces" by voluntary enlistments for a specified period.

The general words "to provide and maintain a navy" could with much more apparant plausibility be construed to authorize coercion when a sufficient number of volunteer seamen could not be obtained. For at the time the Constitution was adopted and long before it had been the practice of the British government to compel by force seamen to serve on board its ships of war whenever there was a deficiency of volunteers—and it might be said with some appearance of reason, that the power to provide and maintain a navy, implied that it was to be provided and maintained in the same manner that it had been provided and maintained by the government under which we had before lived.— I do not think the Whalers and Fishermen, and Seamen of the North­ern States would assent to such a construction or admit it to be cor­rect.—It certainly would not be correct—for such a power over landsmen or seamen would have been repugnant to the principles of the government which was then framed and adopted.

It is true also that the act recites in the preamble that an insurrec­tion and rebellion exists against the authority of the United States, and that it is its duty to suppress it.—But this is the very crisis which the framers of the Constitution foresaw might happen and has given to the general government the powers they deemed adequate to meet it, or safe to grant.

It is the state of things in which Congress is authorized to provide for calling out the militia of the several States and if that course was pursued, the forces called out would be commanded by officers ap­pointed by the State,—and it can hardly be maintained that where a specific power is given to Congress in a certain contingency, Congress may when the contingency happens repudiate the means prescribed in the Constitution and adopt others which it may deem more effectual,— such a construction would make the Constitution of no higher author­ity than an act of Congress,—and every provision in it liable to be repealed and altered or disregarded whenever in the judgment of a majority of the Legislature the public interest would be promoted by the exercise of powers not conferred.

Much has been said in Courts of Justice as well as elsewhere of the war powers of the general government, and it seems to be assumed that the Constitution was made for a time of peace only and that there is no provision for a time of war. I can see no ground whatever for this argument. The war power of the Federal government is as clearly de­fined in the Constitution as its powers in time of peace.—Congress may raise and support armies,—it may provide and establish a Navy,—it may lay an embargo,—it may provide for calling out the militia of the several States—it may grant letters of marque and re­prisal,—it may suspend the habeas corpus,—it may quarter soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner, in a manner to be regulated by law, which it cannot do in time of peace. These are all war powers—powers to be exercised in time of war—or in preparation for war.—And when we find these powers and none others enumerated and conferred for war purposes, it is conclusive proof that they are all that were deemed necessary, and that it was not deemed safe or pru­dent to trust more in the hands of the new government. This conclusion seems inevitable when we find that all powers not delegated to the general government or forbidden to the States were reserved to the States and the people. The same considerations apply with equal force to the case of an insurrection or rebellion against the authority of the United States. The Habeas Corpus may be suspended and the militia called out to suppress it.—The Constitution has armed the general government with these powers to meet the emergency mentioned in the preamble to this law. But it seems to be supposed that these measures are not adequate to meet the crisis,—and that the Federal government may for the time disregard the limitations of power contained in the Constitution and adopt any measures it may deem necessary to put down the rebellion. This view of the subject, in its effect, puts aside the government created by the Constitution and establishes a temporary or provisional government in its place.—But the Judiciary who derive all the power they possess from the Constitutional government—and have all sworn to support it, would hardly be justified in violating any of its provisions—or in sanctioning their violation by any other Department of the government.—They can never be called on to execute or enforce unconstitutional laws or recognize as justifiable assumptions of power which the Constitution has not conferred.

But there is a more serious objection to this act of Congress—than those above stated.—It enables the general government to disorganize at its pleasure the government of the States,—by taking forcibly from them the public officers necessary to the execution of its laws.

I have already spoken of the sovereignty reserved to the States, as altogether independent of the sovereignty of the United States and in no respect subordinate to it. It had high duties to perform in the protec­tion of the persons and property of the citizen in preserving the peace and promoting the prosperity of the Citizens of the State. And as the militia when called into the service of the United States were to be taken from the people of the State it is essential to the existence of State Sovereignty that its governors, judges and civil officers necessary for the purpose of carrying on the government should not be taken away, and the government thereby disorganized and rendered incapable of fulfill­ing the duties for which it was created, what officers are required for that purpose, the State sovereignty alone can judge, accordingly we find in the clause of the Constitution herein before referred to, that no power is granted to the Federal government to determine what descrip­tion of persons shall compose the military force called the militia; the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, was necessarily delegated to Congress to make that arm of the military force efficient by conforming that organization and discipline to that of the army, so that when called into the service of the United States they might conveniently act together.

But the power prescribed who shall be liable to be called on and who exempted, is not given, not any power from which it can be in­ferred, on the contrary the right to appoint the officers and train the men is reserved to the State.—The State must therefore determine who are to be trained, and they are to be selected from the people or the State.—It would necessarily happen that many from age or infirmity were unfit for military duty—and many would hold official stations essential to the existence and exercise of the State government; of this the people of the State have the sole right to judge. And such persons would not be enrolled and trained by the State because their duties required them to be elsewhere. And if the services of the militia were called for by the United States those only who were enrolled and trained under the State officers would be required by the State to re­spond to the call, and the State government would go on fulfilling its functions without interruption or inconvenience.

But the Act of Congress assumes the right of the General govern­ment to enroll in the national forces of the United States, and in the army or "land forces" as they are called in the Constitution, every able bodied male citizen of the State without regarding the position he may hold in the State government—neither the judges nor executive officers, except the governor, are exempted and are made liable to trial by mili­tary court, and to punishment as deserters, if they refuse to march when ordered by the President.—What is to become of the people of a State if their executive officers and judges are taken away, and their Courts of Justice shut up? It will hardly be said in defence of the law that the Governor may appoint others to fill their places; for I believe it will be found that the people of no one of the States anticipated the possibility of such a state of things and have not therefore made provi­sions in their respective Constitutions to meet it. And indeed if every able bodied citizen is liable to the Conscription unless exempted by Congress, the Governors of the States, if they had not been specially exempted, might be forced into the army, and find themselves standing by the side of their generals and Judges as privates in the ranks and commanded and disciplined by officers appointed by a different sovereignty.

Neither does the privilege of hiring substitutes or paying $300. lessen the constitutional objections to the law. For the State Officers could not be required to furnish substitutes or pay $300. unless the power exists to compel them to serve in person.

There can be no actual government without proper officers to exer­cise its powers and execute its laws. The act in question shows that Congress was fully sensible of this,—and has exempted all of the exec­utives and judicial officers of the United States, whose services are re­quired to carry on the government.—That government is preserved in the full, free and uninterrupted exercise of all its powers. But it ex­empts none of the Officers of the State governments, but the Gover­nor—and it leaves him without any other officer, executive or judicial. How is the peace of the State to be preserved, and the laws efficiently executed, if the whole or even a part of the officers of the State to whom these duties have been assigned are taken away and forced into the Army of the United States? No one I think can believe that the men who framed the Constitution could have intended to give to the new sovereignty they then created the power to paralyze or cripple the old ones, so as to disable them from executing the power expressly reserved to them,—powers essential to the safety of the people of the State and which the State government alone could exercise under the provisions of the Constitution.

I speak of the Constitutional and lawful power, not of the physical power which the Constitution has placed in the hands of the Federal government.

For in a contest of mere force, a State would meet the United States upon very unequal terms—prepared as the latter always is with a dis­ciplined army and navy at its command.—But so far from intending to give the general government the power to disorganize the government of a State they have carefully and jealously excluded it from any right to interfere in the domestic controversies and difficulties of a State, even where its aid might be supposed to be useful. For in the case of re­bellion or insurrection against the State government, the United States is not allowed to interfere in it, to support the State authority, unless its assistance is applied for by the Legislature of the State or by the Exec­utive where the Legislature cannot be convened (Art. 4, S. 4.) scarcely any provision could more strongly show how anxiously and jealously the sovereignty of the States was guarded from any interposi­tion by the United States.—It is not permitted even to defend it, unless their assistance is asked for by the State authorities.

The circumstance that the Federal government pervades the whole union, and that its power within the sphere of action assigned to it, is supreme over that of the States, is perhaps calculated to create an im­pression upon the minds of those whose pursuits have not led them to examine particularly the provisions of the Constitution,—that its su­premacy over the State extends to all cases where the general govern­ment may choose to exercise it.—The character of the powers assigned to it, and in which its power is supreme, is also calculated to attract the public attention far more than the quiet exercise of State powers, in any single State.—But it must be remembered that State Sovereignty also pervades every part of the Union and in that respect is coextensive with that of the United States.—In every part of the Union (except the territories) there is a State government, exercising independently of the general government, all the powers not delegated to the United States. These powers although not so striking as those exercised by the general Government are not less important to the happiness of the people.— For while the powers conferred on the general government contain mainly our foreign relations and the intercourse between the different States, it is the State Sovereignty which preserves tranquillity in the State, and guards the life, liberty and property of the individual Cit­izen, and protects him in his home and in his ordinary business pursuits.

It cannot be that the men who framed the Constitution, or the peo­ple who adopted it could have regarded these interests as of less value than those committed to the care of the Federal government,—and could have intended on that account to give the latter the power, when­ever it deemed it expedient to paralyze the action of the State govern­ments,—and leave the people to choose between anarchy on the one side, or a purely unlimited military despotism on the other, to be co­erced by the U. States.

For the reasons above stated, I am of opinion that this Act of Con­gress is unconstitutional and void,—and confers no lawful authority on the persons appointed to execute it.

there should be a proviso, no service, no vote... --- jeremiad

Agreed..

You guys watch (or read) too much sci-fi.

Now that you've made your typical display of erudition: --

How do you feel bout the constitutional boot camp idea, -- no camp, no vote?

No go.

[tpaine #9] I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE, shortly after high school, as a precondition before they get the vote..

Not everyone is boot camp material. I would not want everyone, unscreened, put in a boot camp and have a weapon put in their hands (in the Navy, it was almost always just a piece). There's dopers, dead heads and the whole LBGTQ community, and guys with a long rap sheet that they are unable to read. I just do not see it as workable on a scale of EVERYONE.

We have a population of ~330 million. If only 1% turns 18 each year, training would be needed for 3.3 million per year. The logistics of the matter must be considered. And, it would be quite a funding challenge.

Rather than only after high school, perhaps have some sort of training available during high school, or during the summer break between junior and senior. Age would be a factor as many graduate high school under 18.

I would not tie any such training to voting. Perhaps completion of training could be tied to government employment, e.g., people who complete the training receive a 50 point multiple added to their civil service test score and must receive first priority in all appointments.

And then there are conscientious objectors to consider.

No camp, no vote is probably unconstitutional. I do not see the Federal authority to pass such a law. Incentives to complete training might pass muster. If they can give a 5-point multiple for 20 years of active duty service, they should be able to give a 50 point multiple for basic training, if they so choose.

How about the constitutional boot camp idea, -- no camp, no vote?

We are not slaves to the state. No.

I would not want everyone, unscreened, put in a boot camp and have a weapon put in their hands, ---- And then there are conscientious objectors to consider.

Objectors of every stripe would not be required to attend, but would not get to vote, -- solving a LOT of our political problems, voluntarily...

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE,

You're a statist.

How about the constitutional boot camp idea, -- no camp, no vote?

That shouldn't even be a question. Nobody but veterans and land owners should be allowed to vote,and nobody that isn't a citizen should be allowed to own land.

Maybe a draft with no exceptions except for the mentally and physically handicapped will help that happen,as more people get to personally see the corruption and betrayal of our government,and get training in how to deal with it at the same time?

A voluntary boot camp, (no camp, no vote) would undoubtedly help that happen, as more people would get to personally see how our government has been corrupted, and get constitutionally based training in how to deal with it.

Good idea..

A voluntary boot camp, (no camp, no vote) would undoubtedly help that happen, as more people would get to personally see how our government has been corrupted, and get constitutionally based training in how to deal with it.

Good idea..

Yes,it is,but it's not my idea. It was Robert Heinlein's idea,and a damn good one.

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE, shortly after high school, as a precondition before they get the vote.. -- No camp, no vote, ---- This would require a constitutional amendment, of course..

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18-year olds each year.

Once the Federal government is empowered to dictate that all must complete a mandatory boot camp in order to vote, I can only imagine what an Obama federal government would find the authority to include in the mandatory boot camp training. I'll pass on giving such a massive grant of power to the Federal government.

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

One hundred years ago, I would have bet that the income tax amendment was a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18- year olds each year.

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

Once the Federal government is empowered to dictate that all must complete a mandatory boot camp in order to vote, I can only imagine what an Obama federal government would find the authority to include in the mandatory boot camp training. I'll pass on giving such a massive grant of power to the Federal government.

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

Isn't it typical that nolu, a Statist, would view every proposal through a statist curtain...

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

Is it really voluntary when the conditions are: "Go to the boot camp or you can't vote"?

But please, carry on treating me like shit because I don't have a problem with you stopping your car for 5 seconds at a DWI check point. lol

Is it really voluntary when the conditions are: "Go to the boot camp or you can't vote"?

How many times have we been told that, -- 'voting is a privilege, not a right'?

You want to exercise your privilege to vote? Study up on our Constitution...

You're a statist.

I agree.

Deckard, I like how you handle (tpaine) with kid gloves... while (he) is espousing the greatest amount of freedom loss... mandatory military service. --- GrandIsland

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much? -- Of course not...

I agree

I hear a gigantic sucking sound going on in the distance..

I hear a gigantic sucking sound going on in the distance.

That's what Carol Wells will hear one morning... and find O'l Ron blue in the lips and 5 degrees colder that he was when they went to bed.

It's called the last breath.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your constitutional understanding of voting. Americans have the RIGHT to vote unless that's revoked by a felony conviction.

If tpaine was stopped outside a voting booth (for no other reason that it's only a privledge) and not allowed to vote, you know for a fact that the USSC would rule you've been violated.

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

This would require a constitutional amendment. -- Hard to pass, but if coupled with a absolute repeal of ANY effort to institute a draft/selective service, -- it might work.

This nation does not need the draft, but we really need to educate our young people, before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country...

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

Remind me not to vote for you for any public office or anyone you support for public office, Mr. Mao Tse Tung.

You want to exercise your privilege to vote? Study up on our Constitution...

I wholeheartedly disagree with your constitutional understanding of voting. Americans have the RIGHT to vote unless that's revoked by a felony conviction.

And who gets to decree what is a 'felony conviction', -- majority rule?

Remind me not to vote for you for any public office or anyone you support for public office,

I'm voting for, and support Trump.

You voting for Hillary, as many suspect?

And who gets to decree what is a 'felony conviction', -- majority rule?

The judge that presides over the felony conviction, dip shit.

"As of 2010, roughly 5.85 million Americans — or about 2.5 percent of the voting age population — were unable to vote due to a current or previous felony conviction, according to an analysis by the Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for reforms in the criminal justice reform. That amounts to roughly one in every 40 adults in America who can’t vote because of a previous conviction, a large enough population to potentially influence the outcomes of close local and national races."

Now is the time you can shine like Obunghole. I'm waiting for you to wash away personal responsibility and sink us lower into moral decay by stating that laws that prohibit felons from voting is just another way to keep the black voter down. Go ahead, libtard... say it.

I'm voting for, and support Trump.

As you Paultards like to say (any you wear the saying out)... even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your constitutional understanding of voting. Americans have the RIGHT to vote unless that's revoked by a felony conviction.

And who gets to decree what is a 'felony conviction, -- majority rule?

The judge that presides over the felony conviction,

Nope. Under our Constitution judges do not get to decree what are laws. -- Our legislators, guided by the document, write laws, and are NOT obligated to follow majority edicts.

"As of 2010, roughly 5.85 million Americans — or about 2.5 percent of the voting age population — were unable to vote due to a current or previous felony conviction, according to an analysis by the Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for reforms in the criminal justice reform. That amounts to roughly one in every 40 adults in America who can’t vote because of a previous conviction, a large enough population to potentially influence the outcomes of close local and national races."

And you're HAPPY about that? I'm not. -- I think you should lose the vote ONLY for serious crime, and once you've served your time, get your vote back, irregardless of race.

Now is the time you can shine like Obunghole.

Your attitudes support him, not mine.

On waiting for you to wash away personal responsibility and sink is lower into moral decay by stating that laws that prohibit felons from voting is just another way to keep the black voter down. Go ahead, .. say it…

The uninformed black voter is a large part of our electorial problem. Young blacks REALLY NEED remedial education in our Constitutional principles..

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE,

You're a statist.

Would he not be more of a Maoist, with his proposed use of the sort of Marxist- Leninist communist “training and indoctrination” invented by Chairman Mao Tse- tung of China?

As a Pseudo-Maoist, he appears to be advocating “reeducation camps” like the prison camps operated by the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution. The theory underlying such camps was the Maoist theory of reforming counter-revolutionaries into socialist citizens by re-education through labor.

The theory underlying his “reeducation camps” is:

This nation … really need[s] to educate our young people [later changed to EVERYONE], before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country... It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

With his advocacy to preserve a "true ideology" as he knows it through “reeducation camps" … he is no statist, he is a true dyed-in-the-wool Maoist.

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

You mean voluntary like an Obama policy that says boys can use the girls showers and girls can use the boys showers. It's voluntary but the penalty is the loss of millions or billions of dollars.

It's voluntary like raising the drinking age to 21 or losing all highway funding.

Do it or else voluntary.

nolu chan #26

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18-year olds each year.

tpaine#27

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

You can't mandate high schools or high school teachers to provide military training. You need whole new structure to train 3-4 million new 18-year olds per year. Today, the entire military does not have that capablity or anything remotely near it.

And, of course, you have no explanation whatever of how you will persuade the significant majority of Americans to disenfranchise themselves. They are more likely to vote for putting you in stocks for a public flogging shown on the Times Square jumbotron.

You missed your calling with the role of Arseface. (That's not you, is it?)

This nation does not need the draft, but we really need to educate our young people, before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country...

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

This would require a constitutional amendment. -- Hard to pass, but if coupled with a absolute repeal of ANY effort to institute a draft/selective service, -- it might work.

Gatlins weird 'answer': ---

Would he not be more of a Maoist, with his proposed use of the sort of Marxist- Leninist communist “training and indoctrination” invented by Chairman Mao Tse- tung of China? -- - As a Pseudo-Maoist, he appears to be advocating “reeducation camps” like the prison camps operated by the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution. The theory underlying such camps was the Maoist theory of reforming counter- revolutionaries into socialist citizens by re-education through labor. --- With his advocacy to preserve a "true ideology" as he knows it through “reeducation camps" … he is no statist, he is a true dyed-in-the-wool Maoist.

You missed your calling with the role of Arseface. (That's not you, is it?)

Thanks for the laugh..

No, it's not me. I'm much older and my ass hole looks more like your lips, or so gatlin tells me..

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

You mean voluntary like an Obama policy that says boys can use the girls showers and girls can use the boys showers. It's voluntary but the penalty is the loss of millions or billions of dollars.

It's voluntary like raising the drinking age to 21 or losing all highway funding.

Do it or else voluntary.

nolu chan #26

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18-year olds each year.

tpaine#27

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

You can't mandate high schools or high school teachers to provide military training. You need whole new structure to train 3-4 million new 18-year olds per year. Today, the entire military does not have that capablity or anything remotely near it.

And, of course, you have no explanation whatever of how you will persuade the significant majority of Americans to disenfranchise themselves. They are more likely to vote for putting you in stocks for a public flogging shown on the Times Square jumbotron.

You missed your calling with the role of Arseface.

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

One hundred years ago, I would have bet that the income tax amendment was a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18- year olds each year.

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

Once the Federal government is empowered to dictate that all must complete a mandatory boot camp in order to vote, I can only imagine what an Obama federal government would find the authority to include in the mandatory boot camp training. I'll pass on giving such a massive grant of power to the Federal government.

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

Isn't it typical that nolu, a Statist, would view every proposal through a statist curtain...

Your attitude supports him not mine.

Your whole post is bullshit... But I'll just respond to the above bullshit.

Obunghole stands to lose more votes by snubbing felons since most of his fan base are criminals and welfare shitbags. You defend those same felons... and who's attitude is the same as the Kenyans?

Would he not be more of a Maoist, with his proposed use of the sort of Marxist- Leninist communist “training and indoctrination

Actually, I'd call him, Pukard and Sucky Bucky Assholist's.

Voluntary

Like tpaines Nazi brain.

Actually, I'd call him, Pukard and Sucky Bucky Assholist's.

I like that ...

Put words to your amendment. It would be fun to watch chan rip it to shreds.

Chan could even write some of the test questions for tpaine. The collaborative idiocy could be mucho entertaining.

1. Under the Constitution, which of the following statements is correct?

a) Congress writes national law
b) Federal courts write national law
c) The Department of Homeland Security writes national law
d) All of the above

Under the Constitution, which of the following statements is correct?

a) Congress writes national law b) Federal courts write national law c) The Department of Homeland Security writes national law d) All of the above

Under the Constitution, Congress writes federal law.

According to nolu chan, federal court OPINIONs are law..

Roscoe hopes that the department of homeland security makes law.

And so do ALL his buddies.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46349&Disp=27#C27

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46349&Disp=45#C45

You mean voluntary like an Obama policy that says boys can use the girls showers and girls can use the boys showers. It's voluntary but the penalty is the loss of millions or billions of dollars.

It's voluntary like raising the drinking age to 21 or losing all highway funding.

Do it or else voluntary.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46349&Disp=49#C49

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

Yeah, it's voluntary mandatory training.

What a stupid shitbag you are, Arseface.

According to nolu chan, federal court OPINIONs are law..

http://law.justia.com/cases/

U.S. Case Law

U.S. Federal Courts

U.S. Supreme Court (1759 - present)

U.S. Federal Courts of Appeals

U.S. Federal District Courts

Like tpaines Nazi brain.

Voluntary mandatory, like a U.S. Postal Service Memo I recall that said "voluntary compliance is mandatory." Maybe Arseface drafted it.