I belive that this is why a formal declaration of war may be necessary, if we were to reinstate the draft. Presumably, a decision by the people’s elected representatives to enter a state of war gives democratic sanction to all actions of belligerency, including the draft.
BTW, can the President reinstate the draft by executive order, or does this require an act of Congress as well?
The same argument might be made against mobilizing the weekend warriors of the National Guard (sorry, I’m stating a popular perception, not one that I agree with). But can’t they play a vital support role while the professionals do their jobs? I find it hard to believe that every buck private must be a PhD-trained Robo-Soldier. There’s still got to be room for latrine diggers and guys swabbing the deck.
It all comes down to what you believe your obligations are as a citizen, doesn’t it? In times of his country’s need, if a kid truly believes that he can just sit on his ass and enjoy the fruits of liberty without doing his part–maybe he does need a little wake-up call. Nothing makes you more aware of the value of freedom than experiencing its removal.
As of last Monday, would you have said that the World Trade Center would be standing “for the foreseeable future”? Just to give you an idea of how much that phrase is worth.
You certainly make a fine point. Perhaps I’m a little jumpy…the price of freedom being eternal vigilance, now is the time when the people will be most willing to concede their rights. I’m whipping out the constitution at the slightest provocation.
From a philosophical perspective, there is nothing you said that I don’t agree with.
And that’s fine. The Constitution needs defenders, at times like these more than ever, to keep demagogues from trampling our civil rights.
I clearly feel that, using established history, the US has the right to institute a draft. I just don’t think it’s a good idea. If the citizens enjoy the nation enough to wish to make sacrifices to preserve it then they will. If not, then it won’t be preserved.
I can see the headline:
“Nation cancelled due to lack of interest!”
and I’d rather see that than a forced draft to supply manpower for an unpopular war.
Not all young people not serving are “enjoying the fruits of liberty” while ''sitting on [our] asses" Some refuse military service for conscientious reasons, like myself, who was honorably discharged from the Navy for conscientious objection. Reviving a draft would be an affront to all who have religious belief that nothing is worth defending through taking lives.
UnuMondo
From the Selective Service System web site:
If there is a war or national crisis and you don’t take the opportunity to serve your country in some alternative, nonviolent fashion, then yes, I think you are sitting on your ass. Now, if there you have some political objection to a military action, or to the draft itself, you can explore your options for civil disobedience–but face squarely the fact that those options could include prison.
BTW, if you are a conscientious objector, why were you in the Navy in the first place? Even if you served prior to 1973, I didn’t think men were drafted into the Navy.
The 13th Amendment argument has been made to the Supreme Court and rejected; the draft has been expressly decleared constitutional. I don’t know on what grounds the draft can be considered to be anything but involuntary servitude, but maybe the “compelling state interest” card was played to trump the amendment. Anyway, if the draft is reinstated, there will be no serious legal battle over it; judicially speaking, it is a settled question.
I am 28 years old and thus no longer eligible for the draft. There is no way in hell you will ever see me saying that 18-25 year olds should be forced to go off to Afghanistan or wherever to have their guts torn out while I sit here at home in safe old age. No one has the moral right to demand that unless they are subject to the risk of being drafted themselves.
Naval regulations allow for discharge if one can prove a “crystallation of conscience” after enlistment. It’s a long, expensive, difficult process, but thanks to some generous help from my faith, the Catholic Church, and its peace organization Pax Christi, after only a year of presenting my case the Department of the Navy judged in my favour. Note, very few people know of the regulation, MILPERSMAN 1900-020, so only about 200 people a year are discharged as COs. The population of COs is thought to be greater, but many people go AWOL or find other means of discharge.
Incidentally, the Armed Services by law cannont require discharged COs to perform alternate service, as even alternate service can be seen as supporting the machinery ofvwar. So, I doubt the Selective Service guidelines would stand up in court.
UnuMondo
clairobscur: just out of curiosity, where are you from?
UnuMondo: you’d be suprised (and dismayed) and what may or may not stand up in court in something akin to “time of war”. Not that we’re technically there just yet; I’m not taking our leadership’s words totally at face value on this matter.
When troops at, say, Ft. Hood start getting on airplanes to stage for war, then, maybe.
As to the general question presented in the OP: Jonathan Chance raises an interseting point in the abstract. However, if the overall populace perceives that a course of action is just and necessary, I believe that our armed forces would have no trouble finding sufficient volunteers.
As a former service member contemplating going down to the local recruiter’s office, I sure as hell hope I’m not being delusional. :rolleyes: