Should the US reinstate the draft?

Obviously not. Not only is it a contradiction of free will, and puts power to the government instead of the people, it's also akin to slavery and forced servitude.

Which is also against the constitution. Or, rather, one judge doesn't think so. HEre's an excerpt from a wikipedia entry:


Although the Selective Service System is authorized by the Selective Service Act, some argue the constitutionality of the act, claiming the law violates the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of the U.S. Constitution by providing for military conscription. Opponents of the law contend that the draft constitutes "involuntary servitude", under the amendment, which states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.[12]

This has not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court said in Butler v. Perry:

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[13]



Brilliant judge, isn't he? That's like modern christians following the bible to the letter. Including stoning, raping, etc. ARen't we glad they don't?

His rationality is questionable at best, since the constitution must also apply to modern-day era's or it's no longer valid. Also, the phrase "involuntary servitude" is obviously obvious. There is no interpretation required there.

your opinions?

P.S: If you want more poll options I'll edit this post and add them (if I can).

EDIT: Er, apparently you can't edit your own polls...? I screwed up the wording of the question. :/

I'm in favor of one, if needed. It would share the burden of defense among all of us, and might inspire a greater participation in our democracy.

However, conventional war is outdated. It is extremely unlikely that large numbers of troops would be needed anywhere.

Should the US reinstate the draft?

Obviously not. Not only is it a contradiction of free will, and puts power to the government instead of the people, it's also akin to slavery and forced servitude.

Which is also against the constitution. Or, rather, one judge doesn't think so. HEre's an excerpt from a wikipedia entry:


Obviously yes. And it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Any reasonably thinking individual realizes that situations will arise in the world that will require raising armed forces on relativity short notice. To not be able to do so would be tantamount to committing national suicide.

As to the Constitution, the people decided long ago to empower the government with this kind of authority and charged it with the responsibility to protect the people who authorized it.

Your half-baked thoughts are illogical.

I'm in favor of one, if needed. It would share the burden of defense among all of us, and might inspire a greater participation in our democracy.

However, conventional war is outdated. It is extremely unlikely that large numbers of troops would be needed anywhere.

That last statement is inaccurate. Regardless of the nature of the conflict or the combat methods used, there will always be a need for troops on the ground to complete the final phases. And that can require huge numbers.

Man, I have to agree with Read-Only in both accounts. Starting with the later, yes, it is always the groundtroops who hold the territory not the figtherplanes.

Actually both the war party and the peace party could be for the draft.

War party: We need more troops. The military is overstretched.

Peace party: Only with a draft and Average Joe dying in an unnecessery war
would turn the public COMPLETELY against the war.

For exactly this reason, the war party is not pushing for the draft...

Personally I have no problem with the draft in a JUST war... Like protecting one's homeland AT HOME....

Personally I have no problem with the draft in a JUST war...

Well, apparently the greater majority of congress thought it wa a just war, 'cause they voted to go to war.

"Just" is viewed by many in different ways to what you think or feel.

Baron Max

if u need to be called up u are needed for your country i thought u americans loved your country . im british and if i was called up for war i would be proud to fight my country.

I never expected such a turnout. I made a previous thread regarding the morality on infringing free will for the greater good. It received little but negative reviews.

So, I make a thread regarding conscription (obviously against the free will of a lot of Americans), and everyone says "YAY! Draft us!". Is there not hypocrisy here?

I'm in favor of one, if needed. It would share the burden of defense among all of us, and might inspire a greater participation in our democracy.


In the fantasy event that the US starts a war it should have to begin with? Okay, sure, I can live with that. However, conscription is flawed to begin with. In the 1970's, for example (vietnam), the "rich" people easily avoided conscription simply by being busy in college. The working class were drafted like flies with no say in the matter, or money to spend to have a say in the matter.

Aside from this, it deals with the government utterly removing freedom of choice. if you want to defend your country, then why aren't YOU in iraq right now instead of chatting on a forum? To call it democracy when you force the unwilling to fight a war they don't want to, nor support, is not democracy. It is in every way unethical.

Obviously yes. And it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Then, my dear man, you must read this: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Yes. Totally not against the constitution to force someone unwilling to fight in a war to join in involuntary servitude.


Any reasonably thinking individual realizes that situations will arise in the world that will require raising armed forces on relativity short notice. To not be able to do so would be tantamount to committing national suicide.

Committing national suicide, you say? Tell me, when is the last time, sans WW2, we NEEDED to amass such a force? Vietnam was largely a failure, and after WWII we really shouldn't have gotten our noses into anything. Conscription only allows the government to better start wars it shouldn't have to begin with, while keeping a leash on the people and forcing them to do the governments bidding.

It is, by all accounts, irrational to put conscription back.


As to the Constitution, the people decided long ago to empower the government with this kind of authority and charged it with the responsibility to protect the people who authorized it.

the constitution was made to ensure the government didn't get that kind of power. The people should have direct say in the matter. The government has absolutely no right to demand the public to do anything, the public should demand the GOVERNMENT.

Unless you're a fascist. *cough*


Your half-baked thoughts are illogical.

Resulting to ad-homs are we? :rolleyes:



Personally I have no problem with the draft in a JUST war... Like protecting one's homeland AT HOME....

'xactly. In emergency situations. Not fighting wars we shouldn't be. And only when the public, by a very large majority agrees to the war.

Well, apparently the greater majority of congress thought it wa a just war, 'cause they voted to go to war.

"Just" is viewed by many in different ways to what you think or feel.

Baron MaxHa! Sure they did, until the fabricated intelligence, lies and coverups to push the war through became a public affair disgracing the lowest rated most inept president in US history. All the way down to the administration buying journalists to write in favor of the war. Truly and thoroughly despicable actions in an alleged democracy.
Now Pelosi is wildly popular. Thanx little George!

im not draftable, and im against it.

end transmission.

Resulting to ad-homs are we? :rolleyes:


Obviously not! I said your thoughts (meaning what you expressed here) are illogical. Clearly attacking WHAT was said, not who said it. Sheesh!!!!!

Obviously not! I said your thoughts (meaning what you expressed here) are illogical. Clearly attacking WHAT was said, not who said it. Sheesh!!!!!

Fair enough. Consider it a different type of "ad-hom'. attacking ones logic with a baseless statement. :p

Edit: wow, we're half and half. Does this mean there will be a civil war?

im british and if i was called up for war i would be proud to fight my country.
Fight your country? Traitor!

Combat is a team sport particularly these days. would you want to risk your life with an amature? Every professional soldier I know agrees on at least one issue NO DRAFT. If there was an absolute emergency then yes and only for the shortest amount of time possible. Fight wars today takes a certain mind frame and a lot of training and practice to utilize extremely destructive weapons effectively and prevent fratricide. The amature militia rising up can make it difficult for professional troops to hold a territory "Iraq". They are little more than decoys in actual combat. The U.S.,Russia,Germany and Great Britain Have all spent a lot of money insuring that numbers mean less today than they ever have before. There are very rare occasions when a large number of troops is helpful but mostly they are worthless without proper training . Even infantry takes practice to work with squad and company. I feel sorry for the seargent who has to get an individual who does not want to be there to change their perceptions enough to be an effective soldier if that is even possible. I can see how the appeal of broad minded fairness "every one has the same chance of getting drafted might sound reasonable but lets face it the rich are not going to risk their children so there will always be exceptions to protect them.

laughing weasel , I have been that Sergeant, and I will tell you there are ways to motivate those Individuals who don't want to be there, and no there is a way that everybody gets to go, just make no deferments to the law.

laughing weasel: "The amature militia rising up can make it difficult for professional troops to hold a territory "Iraq" ... I feel sorry for the seargent who has to get an individual who does not want to be there"

Only the uninformed or unbalanced "want to be" in combat. A sergeant, or any military leader who relies on troops "wanting" to fight and die (once they know what they are into) is deluded. The "Greatest Generation" of WWII draftees were no less professional as soldiers than today's American forces. The quality of training is an entirely independent issue from a draft, which could include ready reserves.

Jeremyhfht: "It is, by all accounts, irrational to put conscription back."

Conscription forces Americans to be personally invested in the wars they tacitly support. A draft encourages democratic activism, and is an important hedge against special-interest wars. Presently US forces are engaged in Iraq for a hidden agenda that has never been democratically debated. If more Americans shared a personal risk in this adventure, it would already be over.

Read-Only: "Any reasonably thinking individual realizes that situations will arise in the world that will require raising armed forces on relativity short notice. "

That depends on the nation. There are many nations in the world today that do not face any conceivable strategic threats, and their number is growing. Over the course of history to the present, the occurance of conquests and empires has been in steep decline.

Economic deterrence to warfare has been multiplying. The profitability of warfighting is coming to an end. In the case of the USA, the Iraq experiment is certainly shifting billions around, and has made a few defense and mercenary corporations fantastic returns. But regarding the national interest, Iraq is both a financial and strategic debacle.

As with the Soviet Union, it may happen that the US may become overburdened by a grossly bloated military budget. Presently, Americans are spending more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined, yet our military readiness is understood from all sides to be at the breaking point, where we are not prepared to deal with another military emergency at this time.

We have evolved into a society that is loathe to mobilize for war, even as our national posture toward the world surrounding us is not a little bit arrogant and even belligerent. To me a large part of the equation is the lack of a draft, which can contribute to strategic recklessness in the White House. Because Americans so typically do not concern themselves with the implications of going to war, it would be an important motivator for an informed democracy to function, and a better guarantor of readiness, if far more citizens were at risk of being sent into harm's way, especially should elective military adventures (such as Iraq) be contemplated.

Should the US reinstate the draft?

Obviously not.
Do you think the same for employees not willing to acquiesce to involuntary subscription to a newly forming union shop?

Not fight and die fight and win. There are some people who hold some things of higher value than their own lives.

The constitution should have included an opening clause similar to the folloiwng.Government at the local, state and federal level should have no powers not explicitly allowed in this constitution. An individual should be allowed any action not explicitly prohibited.

...dinosaur, there's a reason most of the constitution has to be interpreted. That being one of them. And a reason why other laws are created as long as they're with the constitution.

Naturally, though, we now have a few HUNDRED laws snaked around the constitution because we let the supreme court interpret it. Ever notice how that interpretation changes once they want a new law that contradicts an old interpretation?

laughing weasel: "There are some people who hold some things of higher value than their own lives."

Such fanatics constitute a small minority. Combattants, including many of those posthumously hailed as self-sacrificing heroes, typically go into combat exercising the necessary sanity-preserving affirmation that "it isn't going to happen to me". Self-preservation is even more primal than tribalism or nationalism. Personalities lacking or repressing primal motivations toward self-preservation are not normal personalities.

Although a near-religious sainthood is often attributed to the fallen in rallying tribalism/nationalism, suicidal fanaticism is not in the traditions of most military cultures (and notably that of the USA). The notion that so many lives were willingly given in sacrifice to the nation is not only a baseless assumption, it is also sick.

Joining the military, or agreeing to serve under a draft does not equate to valuing one's country, or a particular cause over one's own life. It is instead a mortal gamble, not unlike many other mortal gambles all sorts of people take for a wide variety of reasons.