I don't think its a valid conclusion to say that someone against forced military conscription would never fight for anything, or that he would never join the military voluntarily himself. To oppose conscription is to oppose fascism.War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
To answer the title of the thread, yes per the Supreme Court of the United States.
All the other opinions in the thread don't answer the question.
Ok broseph, the only way to be patriotic is to force other people to serve the government. Wave those flags or go to jail. Go USA.I think it's a VERY valid conclusion. You always hear "When the US is attacked I'll be the first to sign up!" Hogwash.
And the opinions of the Supreme Court don't address the Constitution.
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionNeither 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.
They've addressed that specifically. In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude" as contemplated by the 13th Amendment.
Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Congress' power to raise armies is considered absolute, and the "involuntary servitude" provision of the 13th Amendment is not meant to curtail it, but to prevent chattel slavery.
Was this the same Supreme Court that upheld the Sedition Act of 1918 and allowed Woodrow Wilson to round up 100,000 pacifists and dissenters and put them in concentration camps? For using harsh language about the government??
Both. They are deriving their opinion off of what they want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says. Involuntary servitude is expressly prohibited, except as punishment for a crime. There is no coherent way to explain how conscription can coexist with the 13th Amendment, so they produced this muddled piece of garbage.So, which is your argument: they didn't address it, or it was a bad Supreme Court? Saying it is a bad Supreme Court does not address their reasoning and is not the initial complaint you made.
Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Conscription = Slavery. I really don't see how someone can say otherwise...
Both. They are deriving their opinion off of what they want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says. Involuntary servitude is expressly prohibited, except as punishment for a crime. There is no coherent way to explain how conscription can coexist with the 13th Amendment, so they produced this muddled piece of garbage.
.... some aspiring lawyer, in the future, might well be able to make a case that a draft is only Constitutional with a declaration of war by congress. And not in times where the idiot in chief decides to just send troops abroad.as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people
Quite the paradox. Just like enslaving people to free slaves. Fortunately they made the language clear enough that we don't have to read their 150 year old minds.So, your argument is that the same Congress that proposed the 13th Amendment and which was fighting a war while making unprecedented use of conscription was trying to make the prosecution of that war impossible? That seems to be unlikely.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
Quite the paradox. Just like enslaving people to free slaves. Fortunately they made the language clear enough that we don't have to read their 150 year old minds.
On reading the decision that Carmel posted it looks like conscription would be Constitutional if congress were to declare a war. Would it still be Constitutional if they did not?
........ some aspiring lawyer, in the future, might well be able to make a case that a draft is only Constitutional with a declaration of war by congress. And not in times where the idiot in chief decides to just send troops abroad.
The trouble with guessing the collective intent of America's founding fathers is that people like to assign to them their own beliefs.Really? So, you agree, for instance, that the 2nd Amendment's "well-regulated" clause should be read as modern usage rather than the original understanding? That's the nail the anti's hang a power to regulate guns away.
Perhaps Bill Clinton used this as his inspiration for his linguistic acrobatics over the word 'is.' To the rest of us it appears rather desperate and silly. President, Justice, or otherwise.The Court believed that servitude was not the same as service. It's a somewhat plausible argument, given the circumstances, your wish it were not does not provide a convincing refutation.
I understand that many of the founding fathers opposed slavery. Yet in an effort to form the United States and preserve the union, they did not expressly ban slavery [or conscription] in the original constitution. However, they made it explicitly clear the principles in which this nation was supposed to be based on: inalienable rights of the individual. Citizens were guaranteed that they would not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The framers didn't have to expressly ban slavery/conscription so long as they included such definitive language about our inalienable rights.Do you know you of any documents or writings that suggest that the purpose of the Amendment was anything other than to outlaw chattel slavery?
The most important reason to oppose a draft is that it violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude. - Ron Paul