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

bananas

(27,509 posts)
46. Yes, and that reasoning was taken to the Supreme Court in 1918
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:43 PM
Mar 2015

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.


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>

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Conscientious Objection poll [View all] Ken Burch Mar 2015 OP
I believe the requirement should be for national service BainsBane Mar 2015 #1
That's slavery and is unconstitutional. bananas Mar 2015 #10
There has been a draft in this country you know BainsBane Mar 2015 #11
And yet that's exactly how it is. bananas Mar 2015 #14
That reasoning would make military service by draft a form of slavery Silent3 Mar 2015 #37
Yes, and that reasoning was taken to the Supreme Court in 1918 bananas Mar 2015 #46
I suggest you do some reading on slavery BainsBane Mar 2015 #54
It's not slavery if the conscripts are adequately paid meow2u3 Mar 2015 #43
That's involuntary servitude, which is also illegal and unconstitutional. bananas Mar 2015 #50
Interesting point, but no one is going to conscientiously objecto Ken Burch Mar 2015 #16
Exactly, which is why a conscientious objector status would be unnecessary. BainsBane Mar 2015 #45
Except it's illegal and unconstitutional. bananas Mar 2015 #52
What can "manditory national service" do that cannot be... stone space Mar 2015 #27
The idea of national service BainsBane Mar 2015 #55
NO More war!!! onecaliberal Mar 2015 #2
I agree, but what about this? NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #26
Offer them all refugee status, pay for them to relocate to the US Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #30
We do need to help the Afghan women and Children. onecaliberal Mar 2015 #33
Thus a tough call, not as simple as some make it out to be. NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #34
I'm not criticizing POTUS. He inherited this whole mess. onecaliberal Mar 2015 #35
Sorry but if the American people want the draft which the military doesn't want anyway, then under yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #3
You're assuming war and the draft can be done right. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #4
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
Thanks for clarifying. n/t. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #6
Anytime! Have a great night! yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #7
Conscientious objectors made their case to the warmongers. bananas Mar 2015 #12
So let's NOT do it. John Poet Mar 2015 #18
Everybody should be drafted sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #8
Even if that were the case, TPTB would still get cushy spots for their own. BillZBubb Mar 2015 #9
I voted NO fadedrose Mar 2015 #13
How 'bout we just say NO to war? John Poet Mar 2015 #19
Besides NATO fadedrose Mar 2015 #23
I think anyone that does not want to serve, need not fear the tyranny of service. Rex Mar 2015 #15
No one should be able to be forced to kill another human being. Marrah_G Mar 2015 #17
Less then 25% of the positions in the military are combat positions, In other words anotojefiremnesuka Mar 2015 #21
NO DRAFT -- AT ALL HeiressofBickworth Mar 2015 #20
Wow, thanks for posting that story. rgbecker Mar 2015 #47
No exemptions for ANYONE in other words ones money will not save their ass anotojefiremnesuka Mar 2015 #22
In what sense is a draft that people can just refuse a draft? Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2015 #24
Other. LWolf Mar 2015 #25
not all people are capable. no one should be forced. there will always be enough that volunteer. seabeyond Mar 2015 #28
The US has used the draft for WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam Lurks Often Mar 2015 #36
they did it, because of the times and the accpetance of it and many reasons. they do not do it seabeyond Mar 2015 #38
You need to look into the link more, we had a draft during peacetime Lurks Often Mar 2015 #39
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
I'm against wars madokie Mar 2015 #29
Actually, I think conscientious objector status should include more than just drafts. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #31
I'm with you on that. rgbecker Mar 2015 #48
“Patriots always talk of dying for their country but never of killing for their country.” Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #32
As defined by Muhammad Ali's H2O Man Mar 2015 #41
I advocate a universal conscientous objector status, everyone should object. Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #42
We need Combat Medics One_Life_To_Give Mar 2015 #44
My father-in-law was a medic. He told the Navy flat out he'd never shoot anyone. hunter Mar 2015 #49
Choice 1 is pretty much the legal definition. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #51
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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Conscientious Objection p...»Reply #46