Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Conscientious Objection poll [View all]bananas
(27,509 posts)46. Yes, and that reasoning was taken to the Supreme Court in 1918
which ruled:
the proposition simply denies to Congress the power to raise armies which the Constitution gives. That power by the very terms of the Constitution, being delegated, is supreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Draft_Law_Cases
Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.
Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/245/366.html
U.S. Supreme Court
ARVER v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
<snip>
The proclamation of the President calling the persons designated within the ages described in the statute was made and the plaintiffs in error who were in the class and under the statute were obliged to present themselves for registration and subject themselves to the law failed to do so and were prosecuted under the statute for the penalties for which it provided. They all defended by denying that there had been conferred by the Constitution upon Congress the power to compel military service by a selective draft and if such power had been given by the Constitution to Congress, the terms of the particular act for various reasons caused it to be beyond the power and repugnant to the Constitution. The cases are here for review because of the constitutional questions thus raised, convictions having resulted from instructions of the courts that the legal defences were without merit and that the statute was constitutional.
The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power 'to declare war; ... to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' Article 1, 8. And of course the powers conferred by these provisions like all other powers given carry with them as provided by the Constitution the authority 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' Article 1, 8.
As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice. It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon, therefore the power conferred upon Congress to raise armies was only coterminous with United States citizenship and could not be exerted so as to cause that citizenship to lose its dependent character and dominate state citizenship. But the proposition simply denies to Congress the power to raise armies which the Constitution gives. That power by the very terms of the Constitution, being delegated, is supreme. Article 6.
<snip>
U.S. Supreme Court
ARVER v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
<snip>
The proclamation of the President calling the persons designated within the ages described in the statute was made and the plaintiffs in error who were in the class and under the statute were obliged to present themselves for registration and subject themselves to the law failed to do so and were prosecuted under the statute for the penalties for which it provided. They all defended by denying that there had been conferred by the Constitution upon Congress the power to compel military service by a selective draft and if such power had been given by the Constitution to Congress, the terms of the particular act for various reasons caused it to be beyond the power and repugnant to the Constitution. The cases are here for review because of the constitutional questions thus raised, convictions having resulted from instructions of the courts that the legal defences were without merit and that the statute was constitutional.
The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power 'to declare war; ... to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' Article 1, 8. And of course the powers conferred by these provisions like all other powers given carry with them as provided by the Constitution the authority 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' Article 1, 8.
As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice. It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon, therefore the power conferred upon Congress to raise armies was only coterminous with United States citizenship and could not be exerted so as to cause that citizenship to lose its dependent character and dominate state citizenship. But the proposition simply denies to Congress the power to raise armies which the Constitution gives. That power by the very terms of the Constitution, being delegated, is supreme. Article 6.
<snip>
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sorry but if the American people want the draft which the military doesn't want anyway, then under
yeoman6987
Mar 2015
#3
Oh I know. I say my BS above because I don't think we could have a draft even if we wanted too
yeoman6987
Mar 2015
#5
Less then 25% of the positions in the military are combat positions, In other words
anotojefiremnesuka
Mar 2015
#21
No exemptions for ANYONE in other words ones money will not save their ass
anotojefiremnesuka
Mar 2015
#22
not all people are capable. no one should be forced. there will always be enough that volunteer.
seabeyond
Mar 2015
#28
they did it, because of the times and the accpetance of it and many reasons. they do not do it
seabeyond
Mar 2015
#38
there are a lot of IF's in that. i do not hold the position understanding we live in a fluid world
seabeyond
Mar 2015
#40
Actually, I think conscientious objector status should include more than just drafts.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Mar 2015
#31
“Patriots always talk of dying for their country but never of killing for their country.”
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2015
#32
I advocate a universal conscientous objector status, everyone should object.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2015
#42
My father-in-law was a medic. He told the Navy flat out he'd never shoot anyone.
hunter
Mar 2015
#49
There should be no draft period, unless those people who are drafted will be the ones
valerief
Mar 2015
#53
I don't see an option for they just plain flat out don't want to be in the current military.
Jamastiene
Mar 2015
#56