Hark, in thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?
Delitescent.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Not to single you out, because it’s a very common argument. But not very long ago, the government gave men of a certain age a choice of either killing total strangers, who were 5000 miles away and absolutely no threat to the US, or going to jail.
And not only did many of the same people now at Tea Party rallies not question its legality, but they called anyone who did cowards and traitors.
If only the constitution explicitly gave Congress the authority to “raise and support Armies”.
Until some Tea Partiers show up in this thread, let’s leave them out, OK?
Wasn’t that Gilgamesh, and not King Lear?
Congress is quite evidently able to raise and support Armies by paying volunteers.
So what? The Constitution is silent on the method of raising Armies. Conscription (or compulsory service in a militia) was common in colonial times, so it would be odd for the Founders to not explicitly forbid it if they meant it to be so forbidden.
That is an interesting interpretation of the concept of enumerated powers.
It’s also silent on the method of building post roads, which is in the same clause as raising armies. So I guess there wouldn’t be any problem with a law requiring everyone to work digging ditches and laying asphalt for a year, say from their 21st birthday to their 22nd.
Things change in 200 years, even without an amendment. Flogging and the stocks were common in colonial times; today they would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Child labor was common in colonial times. I guess Newt wants to bring it back, but most people don’t.
Besides, your whole tack is a red herring, and you know it. The people in favor of drafting young men to fight in Vietnam and later opposed to HCR, are by and large not constitutional scholars, although they may have taken a five-minute course from Beck or Limbaugh. They’re just hypocrites.
Ah, you sliced and diced my post to make it seem that it wasn’t one argument. Conscription to build post roads was not common practice at any time the history of the US. As for things changing, that’s an assertion you are making that is not necessarily tied to the constitution since we have a way to amend it to bring in accord with any changes. We have legislative means to outlaw flogging, stocks and child labor. You will note that there is no SCOTUS prescription against child labor.
Well, when one of them pops into this thread, you can aim that argument at them. As it is, it’s, not so surprisingly, a red herring.
and earlier…
Um, you do realize this is GD and not GQ, right?
So I guess I’ll talk about what I consider relevant, and you are welcome to ignore it if you disagree.
A more interesting question than you might realize. Statute labor was the most common method used by states to build and maintain roads, at least in the 19th century. With this practice so commonplace among the states at the time of ratification, federal statute labor might well have been found to be ancillary to the power to build post roads.
Of course it’s GD. If you want to debate with a phantom, knock yourself out.
The Constitution quite explicitly forbids involuntary servitude. Only some rather specious reasoning separates conscription from involuntary servitude from our purposes.
Proposed child labor amendment Don’t know what it adds to the conversation though. 
The problem is that the Constitution is so nebulous that it is not difficult for courts under judicial review to rework its meaning over time. Do we need to revisit the morphing of “public use” from its original meaning to the meaning in Kelo? What about how the ICC have moved from explicit interstate commerce to anything that remotely is of a commerical venture?
For some, this is a benefit in that the Constitution is a living document that can be adapted for modern life. For others, it is a reworking of the Constitution from what it does say to whatever the judge on the bench wants it to say and if that’s the case, why even pretend we have a Constitution. Can the Constitution be read in such a way as to make UHC constitutional? Sure it would involve chaging what the constitution means ever so slightly. My question is does the Constitution’s meaning resemble what it says anymore?
No, that’s not specious at all. Did anyone voting for the Thirteenth Amendment believe they were ending military drafts?
Because its good for the vast majority of people in America, and the purpose of the constitution was to create an orderly system that promoted the interests of white men with an abundance of property.
It doesn’t matter what they believed. Conscription is involuntary servitude. Legislative intent cannot be used to ignore plain meaning.
While I understand that the issue with Congress refusing to use the word tax creates concerns among legal scholars, I have never understood most people’s concern. Currently, I pay more federal tax for choosing not to engage in many economic activities compared to those who do. I pay more tax for owning my home outright than choosing not to finance it. I pay more tax for choosing not to upgrade my home air conditioning unit. I pay more tax for not financing my education through government approved loans. Now it is being proposed that I pay more tax (or whatever you want to call it) if I don’t buy health insurance over someone who does. So to me the real question is whether everyone truly is concerned with whether using or not using the word tax makes something constitutional or unconstitutional or are the opponents of healthcare reform just using this question as an easier way than the ballot box to overturn healthcare reform?