I’ve got some egg on my face if that is true.
The news article I read this morning (here ) said that, " colleges that accept federal money must accept military recruiters on campus."
Ah, you posted too quickly for me.
I wonder if the Law Schools that are currently refusing military recruiters (Vermont Law School, New York Law School, and William and Mitchell Law School according to wiki) will be forced into accepting recruiters now?
I believe the current amendment does not require it. The court was just saying that Congress *could *legally, directly require it.
And that would be, in my view, a perfectly constitutional thing for Congress to do… but a very unwise, very poor public policy choice for Congress to make.
I am not disagreeing, just curious. Could Congress require that schools accept recruiters from, say, white power organizations looking for legal staff?
This doesn’t make sense in the least bit. Just becuase no information can be gleaned from the military interviewing off campus, does not mean that no information can be gleaned from the military interviewing on campus. For example, if I allow a group to meet inside of my house a reasonable person can conclude that I support that group, or at least condone it. Its the same with these universities, by providing facilities to the military they send the message that they at best do not care about the militarys bigotry.
This portion of the amendment seems clearly unconstitutional. By putting this exception in the amendment, Congress is favoring religion over non-religion. That, in my opinion, is a violation of the establishment clause and should be struck.
This is interesting. Could Congress require military recruiters to have access to my home? Could it require that Benny Hill have access to my closet?
No worries, quartering soldiers is covered in the bill or rights
I’m curious as to why you think this does not violate the First Amendment.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s good policy to impose these kinds of conditions on federal “largesse” – because it’s not like the fed is giving the dough out of generosity; it’s doing so because it believes there’s a good ROI. I’m certainly not convinced that it’s constitutonal either, but I’m much too lazy to form any structured argument on that score.
–Cliffy
Well since the Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional… no matter how we feel about it… it is (not because they are infalible, but because they get to define what is constitutional)
Ah, obviously it is not clearly unconstitutional though, because the SCOTUS was okay with it.
You may also like to know that religious persons have been able to get out of being drafted into combat positions in the past, and that the Amish do not have to pay into social security.
No.
Congress’ authority in regard to military recruiting derives from the Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy.” Quoting US v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968): “The constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 755 -758 (1948); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918); see also Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 25 -26 (1942).”
Well, I started by reading the First Amendment, and I didn’t see anything in there that this violated, so I sorta figured it didn’t violate anything in there.
I’m not quartering them. They don’t even have to be soldiers, just recruiters. Bricker says that we have to provide for the common defense and the powers are broad and sweeping. Given that drafts are constitutional, there is no real reason why Congress can’t simply break into my home, grab me, and throw me into the service, so why can’t they at the very least force me to watch a recruitment video on my own DVD player with a recruiter watching? Come to think of it, forcing all kids in public schools to watch recruitment videos would be a lot cheaper than the millions upon millions spent on buying ad time.
As far as I can tell they didn’t address it. By the way this comment adds dick to the debate. If you think its constitutional, then say why.
I do not believe that there is a religious requirement for being a conscious objector, am I mistaken. As for the Amish, their exception is unconstitutional if they deny that exception to a non-religious group that voiced the same objections.
Except they didn’t rule it constitutional unless that portion of the bill was specifically addressed in the suit. In order to get a ruling on that aspect of the law, you would have to specifically challenge it.
There isn’t a debate about constitutionality. This was a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is constitutional to force institutions of higher learning to accept military recruiters on their campuses.
I fail to see how interjecting a completely solid fact doesn’t add dick to the debate. Until people stop saying this is unconstitutional then I’ll keep referring them to the fact that actually it is. Anyone who has taken a civics class in high school knows that if the SCOTUS says it is constitutional, it is in fact so.
I tend to note this crap a lot when it comes to the SCOTUS. When the SCOTUS is making a decision X group agrees with, that group will counter any arguments against it as “hey, it’s constitutional and you need to recognize that.” Sort of like how Pro-Choicers smugly explain how they have the absolute right of choice. While those who oppose the position will continue to say it is unconstitutional and that the SCOTUS erred.
Of course group X is certainly likely to engage in the same type of behavior its opponents do anytime it is confronted with a decision it dislikes.
Either way everyone needs to realize that yes, factually speaking this is now constitutional. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but to say it is unconstitutional is factually incorrect and has no place in GD.
No, there isn’t a religious requirement per se but it can be more difficult to get conscientious objector status as a non-religious person. Well, at least it was, we haven’t had a draft in so long it’s hard to say what it would be like today.
Up until 1970 it was simply a fact that to be a CO you had to have some religious ideology for it, the “I don’t like war” argument just didn’t fly. A SCOTUS ruling changed that.
During the civil war conscientious objectors either had to pay a fine or hide, there wasn’t any way to conscientiously object without having something taken from you.
In WWI conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in non-combat roles, those who refused any military service were locked in prison, and eventually used as labor.
WWII conscientious objectors could serve in non-combat roles, if they absolutely refused military service they were drafted into the CPS in which they performed various civilian labor duties on the home front.
I’m not sure what CO criteria would be used if a draft were reinstated today, currently if members of the military become conscientious objectors during their term of duty they have to have a hearing presided over by chaplains and other officers to show that they have a legitimate CO stance and are not just making up an excuse to get out early. So it seems likely to me that a religious stance is definitely one that is easier to defend in such a hearing and probably more likely to get you off as a CO.
As for the Amish, for a long time they paid all the taxes we do but refused many of the services. The IRS ultimately change the code so that they wouldn’t have to pay the taxes since they aren’t using the services. I’m guessing the reason average Joe doesn’t avail himself of this option is because it is presupposed on there being a group dynamic. For the Amish to have their exception they have to in good faith help take care of elderly Amish and help with the medical bills of other Amish. The Amish tend to have a good bit of monetary wealth in their communities, and if any one person suffers hardship the community almost invariably helps to fix it (erecting barns in 1 day raisings if they are destroyed by fire, or by paying in full and up front all medical bills any one of them might need if they go to a modern hospital.)
I’m not sure if there is a like exemption for atheists but I doubt it, the IRS exemption is based on the concept of a “religious sect” and they accept the refusal of insurance benefits (and thus the refusal to pay into them) in part because these sects actively take care of their own. Ostensibly if the Amish stopped taking care of their old they would lose their exemption.
Link You can check it out here, I haven’t read through it entirely but I don’t really see any exceptions made for areligious sects.
Some of the relevant passages read:
and
I should have added on to my last post but I forgot to do so.
I think this is constitutional because the SCOTUS didn’t strike it down. The SCOTUS isn’t strictly refrained on what it can rule on, if it reviews a law it can strike it down on any aspect it finds in the law that it believes to be unconstitutional. There have been various SCOTUS decisions, in fact some of the most important ones, where the SCOTUS expanded enormously beyond the case at hand and any arguments presented in said case (Marbury v. Madison, Dredd Scott for example.)
If the SCOTUS truly saw the religious exemption to be unconstitutional it definitely could have chosen to say so, just because it wasn’t a matter raised by counsel (or was it? I don’t know) for either side doesn’t mean the SCOTUS couldn’t review it. Once it is reviewing a statute it can certainly rule on any part of it they choose, there is nothing that restricts SCOTUS ability to do so.
Furthermore I’m of the opinion that if something isn’t strictly unconstitutional, then it is constitutional unless shown to be otherwise. And thus whether or not it is to be “allowed” is up to various other elements of government (Legislative branches state and federal, municipalities and etc.)
Again, I don’t believe this aspect of the tax code is unconstitutional because right now it is the law of the land. And it has never been declared constitutional. I profess ignorance as to whether it has ever been challenged in court. And there may in fact be exceptions out there for areligious groups I just couldn’t find them in my brief searchings.
Yeah, it’s ironic that this case is in many ways the foundation for what people see the Court doing these days. The case is so bizarre, and the ruling so radically wacky and outside the issues put before the court…
Not to mention that even Stevie Wonder knows that it’s “signed, sealed, DELIVERED” not just “signed, sealed.”
I can’t speak to the correctness of this under the law, but would argue that it’s extremely poor public policy, if only because it supports, directly, the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which is immoral and unwise.