federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional

if the draft is more efficient then it makes more sense doesn't it.

 

I couldn't remember the exact time frame on that so I didn't mention it.

 

So enslaving people because is more convenient is better than taking volunteers?

 

In war time, the only "moral value" is winning as quickly as possible. All else is topping on the sundae. If a draft accelerates that process it is the right thing to do.

 

implied powers which come from the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" say otherwise. So no the draft isn't unconstitutional

 

Of course it is. The 13th amendment supersedes.

 

Yes or no, Do you need an army to fight the enemy? Of course you do. Otherwise what are you doing to fight with? How are you going to raise an army? Hence the Draft. The 13th doesn't apply here because of implied powers. The Draft is necessary to protect that nation.

 

Let's just say I'm not surprised. In a society that claims that women are equal to men, the idea that women should then receive favorable treatment in certain areas won't fly for too long. Stay tuned for the court to rule that mothers are not better caregivers than fathers and demand that child custody cases go 50/50. (Currently, something like 90%+ of all child custody cases go to the mothers.)

 

Irrelevant.

13th supersedes. It’s how amanemdents work.

 

And yet it dosn't.

 

Interesting point. Technically you are right, but the courts are not going to interpret it that way.

You might want to read the Butler v Perry (1916).

One precedent to point out, in Rostker v Goldberg (1981) the Supreme Court basically said that the government's Constitutional power to raise armies overruled the equal protections of the law in the 14th Amendment, when it came to the draft and the gender discrepancy. However, as you'll be aware, the Supreme Court may have recently essentially reversed that precedent, by refusing to take up the case referenced in this thread discussion.

 

https://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm

1/3 of Vietnam Soldiers were drafted. That isn't a small amount. 66% were in WW2. And there was a wide spread rejection of volunteers as the ranks were so swelling? I don't think so.

I think there is a real myopia at work here. A number of posters that actually think the law protects them from being drafted. That they even think that so is troubling.

 

Mass murdering enemy civilians would also speed the process to victory. Do you support mass murdering innocent people?

 

Boston Dynamics can make entire batallions.

We can choose the gender in our own terrified minds

I am going with young white punks on dope.. At least I will laugh last when I meet a robotic soldier

 

If they are supporting the enemy then they are not "innocent".

 

No it doesn't. There is no hierarchy of amendments in the constitution based on when they were passed. Unless the 13th specifically mentioned the 10th then it has no relevance to it.

 

For people who claim that "if we had a real need of it the U.S. would have plenty of volunteers for a conflict". I know from the accounts by many people who lived in those eras that the draft and volunteering actually go hand in hand. If you have a draft it encourages people to volunteer for the military in a massive way because if they volunteer they have some kind of control over where they serve. For example joining the Navy or Air Force to avoid being drafted into the Army

 

All enemy civilians "support the enemy" if only through paying taxes to them. So kill them all? Men, women, and children?

 

Or we could have a volunteer military with very good pay and benefits and not have to use slavery at all.

 

You are generalizing to make my position sound brutal and uncaring. I believe even in war you should avoid unnecessary killing if possible. If for no other reason to make your transition to the post war era go more smoothly. That said, no military ever deployed in the modern era can function without an infrastructure to fuel, feed, and equip it. And unless it is the military of a tiny, third world type nation then in most nations the civilians who fuel, feed, and equip that military do so WITHOUT physical coercion by the government.

 

Resources are not unlimited. No one will ever join the U.S. military mainly for the pay and benefits because our civilian economy (unless there is another Great Depression) will always have safer, more lucrative options.

And conscription is not slavery. Supreme Court has held that it is not and you do get paid.

 

I believe in war you should avoid unnecessary enslavement if possible.

You have said that anything that is more efficient in warmaking should be done. If there is no enemy civilian population when you are done, then you don't have to worry about any "transition". So murder them all yes?

 

About time. I keep seeing this in the feminist movement. All the equality they can handle. And with each little step, they should get the equality they have demanded for so long. Next will be sports where we should just let there be the sport, and not care whether the participants are men or women. About time women get what they've been wanting.....

On women fighting in the military. Make them equal. Make them qualify and demonstrate all of the same fitness standards that we ask men to produce. Make them FINALLY be equal.

 

Being forced to work at gunpoint is slavery regardless of if they pay you later. And your claim that no one will ever join the U.S. military mainly for the pay and benefits is utter bullshit. Because that's exactly why I joined: for the benefit of free college and the massive bonus I received for getting a Star MOS.

The Supreme Court has a long history of supporting government policies when they are convenient to the government, like eminent domain for instance.

 

Good for you and there are exceptions to the rule. But I doubt you joined during a war against a peer competitor either.

You have a point about the Supreme Court, but what else would you suggest regarding who is the arbiter of what is constitutional or not?